€¦ · 2 part 4. between the hammer and the anvil (1941-1964)............3 the genocide of the...

NEW ZION IN BABYLONThe Orthodox Church in the Twentieth Century

Vladimir Moss

Copyright: Vladimir Moss, 2007

2

PART 4. BETWEEN THE HAMMER AND THE ANVIL (1941-1964) ............3The Genocide of the Serbian Orthodox ......................................................................3German-Occupied Russia ........................................................................................11The Pskov Mission and the Catacomb Church ........................................................15The Church in Belorussia and Ukraine ...................................................................19ROCOR and the Germans.......................................................................................23The Stalin-Sergius Pact ...........................................................................................27Orthodoxy and Paganism in Manchuria.................................................................36The Consequences of the Pact ..................................................................................38The False Moscow Council of 1945 .........................................................................44The Tragedy of the Vlasovites ..................................................................................48The East European Churches Submit......................................................................52ROCOR moves to America......................................................................................56The Greek Church during the War ..........................................................................61The Soviet Offensive: (1) Inside the USSR..............................................................65The Soviet Offensive: (2) Outside the USSR...........................................................71Archbishop John of Shanghai ...................................................................................76More Soviet Councils...............................................................................................84The World Council of Churches ..............................................................................87Divisions in the Greek Church ................................................................................90The New Calendarist Offensive ...............................................................................98The True Orthodox Church of Cyprus ..................................................................104The Cult of Stalin...................................................................................................105ROCOR at the Crossroads.....................................................................................108Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople .............................................................121The Communists Become Ecumenists ...................................................................125The Khruschev Persecution ...................................................................................133The Passportless Movement ..................................................................................138The Florinites Acquire a Hierarchy .......................................................................141The Romanians Acquire a Hierarchy ....................................................................145Another Romanian Hierarchy ...............................................................................150Showdown in San Francisco..................................................................................153

3

PART 4. BETWEEN THE HAMMER AND THE ANVIL (1941-1964)

If My People had heard Me, if Israel had walked in My ways,quickly would I have humbled their enemies,

and upon their oppressors would I have laid My hand.Psalm 80. 12-13

He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant;but the people who know their God shall stand firm.

Daniel 11.32.

By the beginning of the Second World War, the Orthodox Church, havingsuffered the most terrible and sustained onslaught from the powers of evil inher history, was almost unrecognizable from her pre-revolutionary glory. Thesergianist Moscow Patriarchate, on the one hand, and the newcalendaristChurches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece and Romania, on the other,could no longer be counted as truly Orthodox in their official confession. TheChurches of Serbia, Bulgaria and Jerusalem were still Orthodox – but theyhad not broken communion with those Churches that had fallen away fromthe truth, so the prospects of their remaining free from the quicksands of“World Orthodoxy” for long were not good. The situation of the RussianOrthodox Church Abroad was only a little better – she was not in communionwith the Moscow Patriarchate, but had not broken decisively with the otherheretical Churches, and even her attitude to Moscow was not entirelyunambiguous. The Greek Old Calendarist Church was strong in the faith, buttragically divided. The Romanian Old Calendarists were also strong, but asyet had no bishops. The Catacomb Church of Russia was bathed in the gloryof a vast multitude of new martyrs and confessors; but the whole apparatus ofthe most evil and most powerful state in history was directed towards hercomplete annihilation…

Could the outbreak of world war bring relief to the Orthodox Church? Orwould it consolidate the power of the antichristian powers ranged againsther? That was the question in the early months of 1941…

The Genocide of the Serbian Orthodox

On April 6, the Germans invaded Yugoslavia. Archbishop Averky writes:“The unexpected German bombardment of Belgrade on April 6, 1941, whichsoon decided the fate of Yugoslavia, produced such a shattering impressionthat the capital was completely abandoned, both by the government organsand by the ordinary inhabitants, who fled in indescribable panic for manytens of kilometers. Amidst this complete devastation it was only in the life ofthe Russian church in Belgrade that no essential changes took place: theservices prescribed by the Typicon continued as usual, while priests went

4

with the Holy Gifts around the city, giving communion to the wounded andcarrying out prayer services in the refuges. During the raid MetropolitanAnastasy remained at his hierarchical place in the altar, while the clergy tookit in turns to serve prayer services in front of the wonder-working Kursk-Rooticon of the Mother of God ‘of the Sign’. And this in spite of the fact that fivebombs fell in the immediate vicinity of our church, the neighbouring Serbianchurch of St. Mark burned down, and for a whole two days a gigantic firefrom a warehouse full of logs that had been hit by a bomb burned just next tothe wall of the church. On the second day, March 25 / April 7, on the veryfeast of the Annunciation, when there was a particularly violentbombardment, Vladyka Metropolitan was present at the Divine Liturgywhich one of the priests celebrated in the basement of the Russian House forthe many Russian people who had sheltered there. This liturgy, which wascarried out in a situation recalling that of the ancient Catacomb Christians,was sealed for life in the memory of all those who received communion at it.And with the blessing of Vladyka Metropolitan up to 300 people receivedcommunion after a general confession (this was in view of the danger of deaththat clearly threatened everyone).

“Exactly a week later, on Lazarus Saturday, the Germans entered thecompletely destroyed and deserted city, and difficult years began for theRussian emigration in Yugoslavia. Together with the whole of his Belgradeflock, Vladyka Metropolitan nobly endured hunger and cold and all kinds ofrestrictions and deprivations, various unpleasantnesses from the Germanoccupying authorities and hostile attacks from that part of the Serbianpopulation which had submitted to the influence of communist propaganda.

“Soon after the occupation of Yugoslavia by the German armies, membersof the Gestapo carried out a thorough search in the residence of VladykaMetropolitan Anastasy, and then took away the clerical work of theHierarchical Synod.1 However, they were forced to admit that Vladyka , as atrue Archpastor of the Church of Christ, was profoundly alien to all politics,and they left him in peace.”2

Deserted by the Croats, the Serbian resistance was soon crushed. TheGermans arrested Patriarch Gabriel and Bishop Nicholas Velimirovich; but

1 On the day the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, writes M.V. Shkarovsky, “a search wascarried out in the residence of Metropolitan Anastasy [in Belgrade]… [and] searches in thechancellery of the Hierarchical Synod and in the flat of the director of the synodal chancelleryG. Grabbe… During the search the clerical work of the Synod and many other documentswere taken away to Germany for study. In 1945 they were acquired by the Soviet armies andare now in Moscow, in the State archive of the Russian federation…” (Natsistskaia Germania iPravoslavnaia Tserkov’ (Nazi Germany and the Orthodox Church), Moscow, 2002, p. 193; inSoldatov, op. cit., p. 12). (V.M.)2 Averky, Zhizneopisanie Blazhennejshago Mitropolita Anastasia (A Life of his BeatitudeMetropolitan Anastasy), in Troitskij Pravoslavnij Russkij Kalendar’ na 1998 g. (Trinity OrthodoxRussian Calendar for 1998), Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, pp. x-xi ®.

5

although the two hierarchs were to spend the whole war in prisons andconcentration camps, they refused the Nazis’ suggestion that they collaboratewith them.”3 The Bulgarians occupied Yugoslav Macedonia and expelledMetropolitan Joseph of Skopje and Bishop Vincent of Zletovo-Strumica,together with many Serbian priests, to Serbia; seven priests and thousands oflaity were killed by the Hungarians in Vojvodina; and the Italians occupiedKosovo, where Albanian nationalists killed and plundered.4 Nine Serbianhierarchs were killed, including Metropolitans Dositheus of Zagreb and Peterof Bosnia, and Bishops Sabbas of Karlovac, Plato of Banja Luka, Nicholas ofHerzegovina and Seraphim of Ryashko-Prizren (the last in an Albanianprison).5

In neighbouring Czechoslovakia Bishop Gorazd of Moravia-Silesia, aconvert from Catholicism, had since his consecration in 1921 been waging anoble battle returning the Czech lands to the faith of Saints Cyril andMethodius. At the beginning of the war, after being cut off from the SerbianPatriarchate, to which he was canonically subject, he turned to ROCOR’sMetropolitan Seraphim (Lyade) in Berlin, asking him to take his dioceseunder his protection. Metropolitan Seraphim agreed, and gave him holychrism and antimensia. However, in 1942 saboteurs killed the Nazi GauleiterHeidrich in Prague. They were given refuge in the crypt of the Orthodoxcathedral of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Prague. When Bishop Gorazdheard about this some days later, he was very disturbed, knowing that if theGermans discovered this hiding-place, then the whole of the Czech OrthodoxChurch would be subjected to repressions. Before going to Berlin, whereMetropolitan Seraphim had invited him to participate in the consecration of abishop, he asked for the saboteurs to be removed to another hiding-place assoon as possible. Soon the Nazis discovered the hiding-place and on July 18seven of the saboteurs were killed. Two of the cathedral’s priests and otherOrthodox were arrested (the priests were later shot). Bishop Gorazd did nottry to save his own life, but took the whole responsibility upon himself. Hewrote to the authorities: “I place myself at the disposal of the correspondingauthorities and am ready to accept any punishment, including the deathpenalty.” On July 27 he was arrested, and on September 4, after beingtortured, he was shot. The Orthodox Church in Bohemia and Moravia wasshut down and its priests sent to camps in Germany.6

3 Monk Benjamin, Letopis’ Tserkovnykh Sobytij (1939-1949) (Chronicle of Church Events (1939-1949)), part 3, http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis3.htm, p. 20 ®. St. Nicholas was interned inDachau.4 Andrew Shestakov, Serbskaia Tserkov’: kratkij istoricheskij ekskurs (The Serbian Church: a shortdigression); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., pp. 21-25.5 Stella Alexander, Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945, Cambridge University Press,1979, chapter 1, 3; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., p. 22.6 Monk Gorazd, "Sviashchenomuchenik Gorazd" (Hieromartyr Gorazd), Pravoslavnaia Rus'(Orthodox Russia), № 12 (1465), June 15/28, 1992 ®.

6

But by far the worst atrocities were committed against the Serbs in Croatiaand Bosnia by the Ustashi and the Catholic Church in the newly independentstate of Croatia, which had been recognized by the Vatican. On April 28, 1941,the Catholic Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb issued an appeal rapturouslypraising the Ustashi regime of Ante Pavlevic and calling on all Catholicpriests to collaborate with it. Three days before, the government had issued aseries of decrees banning the Cyrillic script, closing all Orthodox schools,imposing a special tax on the patriarchate, forcing all Serbs to wear colouredarmbands with the letter “P” (for Pravoslovac – Orthodox) and banning theuse of the term “Serbian Orthodox religion”. On June 22 the minister ofeducation said that one third of the Serbs in Croatia would be expelled, onethird killed and one third converted to Catholicism. In July the arrests of Serbsbegan. By the autumn over 15,000 Serbs had passed through the camps, andby 1943 there were 300,000 Serbia refugees from Croatia in Serbia.

On December 4, the Croatians passed a law ordering all Church feasts to becelebrated according to the new calendar. The Russian émigrés wereinformed of this, and were threatened with punishment if they did not obey.Metropolitan Anastasy, however, immediately petitioned for an exception tobe made for the Russian parishes, and with the help of the GermanEvangelical Bishop Hackel, on March 26, 1942, this request was granted.However, no Serb was allowed to visit the émigré services.7

Joachim Wertz writes: “In many villages the massacres followed a certainpattern. The Ustashi would arrive and assemble all the Serbs. They wouldthen order them to convert to Catholicism. Those who refused, as the majoritydid, were told to assemble in their local Orthodox parish church. They wouldthen lock them in the church and set it ablaze. In this manner many Orthodoxmen, women and children perished in scores of Serbian settlements.”8

According to Archbishop Stepinac’s report to the Pope on May 8, 1944,240,000 Serbs apostasised to Catholicism. However, many of these returned toOrthodoxy after the war. Hundreds of churches were destroyed ordesecrated, and vast amounts of property were confiscated from theOrthodox Serbs. According to German Nazi figures, about 750,000 OrthodoxSerbs were killed, including five bishops and 177 other clergy.9 200,000 ofthese perished in the notorious camp of Jasenovac alone in conditions ofappalling brutality, 40,000 of them on the orders of the Franciscan FatherFilipovich. Bishop Nicholas Velimirovich inscribed these martyrs into the

7 M.V. Shkarovsky; in Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 35.8 Wertz, "On the Serbian Orthodox Martyrs of the Second World War", Orthodox Life, vol. 33,№ 1, January-February, 1983, pp. 15-26.9 The Germans knew what was going on. Thus on February 17, 1942 Heindrich, Hitler’s right-hand man in his plan for the destruction of the Jews, wrote to Himmler: “The number of Slavsdestroyed by the Croats by the most sadistic methods has reached 300,000… If the Serbsliving in Croatia accept Catholicism they are allowed to live without persecution.” (KarlheinzDeschner, With God and Fuhrer, p. 282; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 38).

7

Church calendar for August 31: “The 700,000 who suffered for the Orthodoxfaith at the hands of the Roman crusaders and Ustashi during the time of theSecond World War. These are the New Serbian Martyrs.”10

One of those martyred in Jasenovac was an old man called Vukashin. Hewas standing “in an aura of peace and joy, softly praying to Christ. Theexecutioner was greatly angered by the old man’s peacefulness and saintlycomposure, and he ordered that he be dragged to the place of execution.

“St. Vukashin was given the usual charge, ‘Accept the Pope or die a mostterrible death’.

“The old man signed himself with the honourable Cross and peacefullyintoned, ‘Just do your job, my son’.

“The executioner trembled with anger. He brutally slashed off one of thesaint’s ears, repeating his charge. The Holy Martyr again peacefully replied,‘Just continue to do your job, my son.’ And so the irrational persecutorcontinued: first the other ear, then the nose, and the fingers one by one. Like anew James of Persia, St. Vukashin was ‘pruned as a sacred grapevine of God.’With each grisly and bloody cut, the noble Vukashin, filled with peace and joyby the Holy Spirit, calmly replied, ‘Just continue to do your job, my son.’

“At length, the vicious torturer gouged out the eyes of the martyr, and thesaint once more replied, ‘Just continue to do your job, my son.’ With that, theexecutioner flew into a rage and slew the holy martyr. Almost immediately,the executioner lost his mind and went completely mad.”11

In February, 1942, Dr. Privislav Grisogno, a Croatian Catholic member ofthe former Yugoslav cabinet, wrote in protest to Archbishop Stepinac: “I amwriting to you as a man to a man, as a Christian to a Christian. I have beenmeaning to do this for months hoping that the dreadful news from Croatiawould cease so that I could collect my thoughts and write to you in peace.

10 However, more recent scholarship gives generally lower figures for those killed. The SimonWiesenthal Center calculated that 600,000 Serbs, 30,000 Jews and 29,000 Gipsies were killed(Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 21). Mark Almond writes: "Probably about 325,000 Serbswere killed by the Ustasha in the NDH [Independent State of Croatia, which includedBosnia], including about 60,000 at Jasenovac alone. In other words about one in every sixSerbs in Pavelic's realm was killed." (Almond, Europe's Backyard War, London: Mandarin,1994, p. 137. See also Aleksa Djilas, "The Yugoslav Tragedy", Prospect , October, 1995, p. 39).Again, the Serb scholar Bogoljub Kocovic writes that 487,000 Serbs were killed during WorldWar II altogether, as opposed to 207,000 Croats, 86,000 Muslims and 234,000 others; while theCroatian scholar Vladimir Zerjavic gives: 530,000 Serbs, 192,000 Croats, 103,000 Muslims and202,000 others (Kocovic, Zrtve drugog svetskog rata u Jogoslaviji, London: Libra Books, 1985, pp.102, 174, 182; Zerjavic, Gubici stanovnistva Jogoslavije u drugom svjetskom ratu, Zagreb:Jugoslavensko Viktimolosko Drustvo, 1989, pp. 61, 82) (S).11 "Holy New Martyr Vukashin", Orthodoxy Canada, № 114, May-June, 1986, p. 3.

8

“For the last ten months Serbs have been killed and destroyed in Croatia inthe most ruthless manner and the value of their property that has beendestroyed reaches billions. Blushes of shame and anger cover the faces ofevery honest Croat.

“The slaughter of Serbs began from the very first day of the establishmentof the Independent State of Croatia (Gospic, Gudovan, Bosanska Krajina, etc.)and has continued relentlessly to this very day. The horror is not only in thekilling. The killing includes everybody: old men, women and children. Withaccompanying barbaric torture. These innocent Serbs have been impaled, firehas been lit on their bare chest, they have been roasted alive, burned in theirhomes and churches while still living, covered with boiling water, then theirskin peeled off, salt poured into their wounds, their eyes have been pulledout, their ears, noses and tongues cut off, the priest have had their beards andmoustaches torn off from their skulls, their sex organs severed and put intotheir mouths, they have been tied to trucks and then dragged along theground, nails have been pressed into their heads, their heads nailed to thefloor, they have been thrown alive into wells and over cliffs, and grenadesthrown after them, their heads smashed against walls, their backs brokenagainst rocks and tree stumps, and many other horrible tortures wereperpetrated, such as normal people can hardly imagine.

“Their rivers Sava, Drav, the Danube and their tributaries have carriedthousands and thousands of their corpses. Dead bodies have been found withthe inscription: ‘direction Belgrade – traveling to King Peter’. In a boat whichwas found on the Sava river there was a heap of children’s heads with thehead of a woman (which could have been a head of one of the mothers of thechildren) with the inscription: ‘Meat for the Jovanova Market in Belgrade’.

“Horrifying is the case of Mileva Bozinic from Stanbandza whose childwas removed from her womb. There was also the case of the roasted heads inBosnia, the vessels full of Serbian blood, the cases of Serbs being forced todrink the warm blood of their slaughtered kin. Countless women, girls andchildren in front of their mothers were raped or else sent off to Ustashi campsto serve the Ustashi; rapes even took place on the altars of Orthodox churches.In the Petrinje county a son was forced to rape his own mother. The slaughterof the Serbs in the Glina Orthodox church and the murder of Serbs on thealtar of the Kladusa church is without precedent in history. There are detailedand original accounts of all these horrors. Even the Germans and Italians wereastounded by these crimes. They photographed a large number of cases ofsuch slaughter. The Germans are saying that the Croatians did this alsoduring the Thirty Years War and that is why there has been a saying inGermany since then: ‘God save us from plague, hunger and Croats.’

“The Srem Germans despise us because of this and behave in a morehumane fashion with Serbs. The Italians photographed a vessel with 3.5

9

kilograms of Serbian eyes, as well as a Croat who wore a necklace strung withSerbian eyes, and another one who came to Dubrovnik with a belt on whichsevered Serbian tongues were hanging!

“The horrors of the camps in which thousands of Serbs were killed or wereleft to die from exposure, hunger and cold weather, are too terrible tomention. The Germans have been talking about a camp in Lika where therewere thousands of Serbs; but when the Germans got there they found thecamp empty, drenched in blood and bloody clothing. In that camp it has beensaid a Serbian bishop also lost his life. Thousands upon thousands of Serbs inthe camp of Jasenovac are still being tortured as they are spending fiercewinter in wooden Gypsy shacks with no straw or covering and with a rationof two potatoes per day. In the history of Europe there have been no similarcases. One would have to go to Asia at the time of Tamerlane, or Genghis-Khan, or to Africa, to the countries of their bloodthirsty rulers to come uponsimilar situations. These events have shamed the name of Croatia forcenturies to come. Nothing can absolve us fully from this ever again. We willnot be able to tell even the last wretched man in the Balkans about ourthousand year old Croatian culture, because even the Gypsies neverperpetrated such cruelties. Why am I writing this to you, when you are not apolitical personage and cannot bear responsibility for all this. Here is why: inall these unprecedented barbarian crimes which are more than Godless, ourCatholic church participated in two ways. A large number of clergy, priests,friars and organized Catholic youth took an active part in all this. It has alsohappened that Catholic priests became camp guards and Ustashi accomplicesand so approved of the torture and slaughter of Christians. A Catholic priesteven slit personally slaughtered an Orthodox clergyman. They could not havedone all this without the permission of their bishops, and if they did, theywould have had to lose their jobs and be taken to court. Since this did nothappen, it means that their bishops granted them permission.

“Secondly, the Catholic Church made us of all this to convert the survivingSerbs. And while the soil was still steaming from the innocent victims’ blood,while groans shuddered from the chests of the surviving victims, the priests,friars, nuns carried in one hand the Ustashi daggers and in the other theirprayer books and rosaries. The whole of Srem is inundated with leafletswritten by Bishop Aksamovic and printed in his printing shop in Djakovo,calling upon Serbs to save their lives and property by converting toCatholicism. It was as if our church wanted to show that it could destroysouls just as the Ustashi authorities destroy bodies. It is an even greater bloton the Catholic church, since at the same time many Orthodox churches andall the Orthodox monasteries have been confiscated, their property plunderedas well as many historical treasures. Even the Patriarchal church in SremskiKarlovci has not been spared. All this violence against conscience and thespirit has brought even greater disgrace to the Croat nation and name…

10

“I write this to save my soul and leave it to you (Archbishop Stepinac) tofind a way to save your soul.”12

Although some have claimed that Stepinac tried to restrain the murderers,there can be no doubt about his fanatical hatred of Orthodoxy. Thus on March27 and 28, 1941, he wrote in his diary: “The spirit of Byzantium – that is, of theEastern Orthodox Church – is something so terrible that only the Omnipotentand Omniscient God could tolerate it… The Croats and the Serbs are fromtwo different worlds, two different poles; without a miracle of God they willnever find a common language. The schism of the Eastern Orthodox Churchis the greatest curse in Europe, perhaps even worse than Protestantism.”

In 1946 Stepinac was tried by the communist government, found guilty oftreason to the State and the murder of Serbs, and imprisoned for five years.On coming out of prison he was awarded a cardinal’s hat by the Vatican, andis now a candidate for canonization!…

Another creation of the Ustashi was the so-called “Croatian OrthodoxChurch”. On June 8, 1942, the Romanian Patriarch Nicodemus raisedROCOR’s Archbishop Hermogenes (Maximov) to the rank of metropolitan ofthis uncanonical church, whose main task was to “Croatize” the Serbs. Itenjoyed the full support of the Croatian authorities, but was rejected by theSerbian Church and by ROCOR under Metropolitan Anastasy, who bannedHermogenes. However, the Germans did not allow this ban to be published.Moreover, on July 27 the Ecumenical Patriarch, followed by most of theOrthodox Churches in the German orbit, recognized the Croat Church. Butbelievers did not go to it.13

Metropolitan Hermogenes was killed by Tito’s partisans in July, 1945.1415

12 Quoted from Liudmilla Perepiolkina, Ecumenism – A Path to Perdition, St. Petersburg, 1999,pp. 230-233, and "Stepinac's Hat is Blood-Red", The Christian Century, January 14, 1953, pp. 42-43. See also the article by the Catholic writer Richard West, "The War in Bosnia", OrthodoxChristian Witness, September 11/24, 1995.13 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 43-44, 44-45; Bishop Gregory Grabbe, Zavet SviatogoPatriarkha (The Testament of the Holy Patriarch), Moscow, 1996, p. 33 ®.14 However, according to another version, he was arrested and condemned together with theCatholic Cardinal Stepinač. But while Stepinačreceived sixteen years in prison, beingreleased after only two years, Metropolitan Germogen was executed (Ilya Goriachev, in MonkBenjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 89-90).15 Several ROCOR priests were killed by the partisans during the war, such as Fr.Yakovlevsky, who was killed in one of the villages of Pozhevachky region in 1941-42, Fr. D.N.Novoseltsev, who with his wife, daughter and a Cossack worker was killed in the village ofMilichintsy, near Valievsk Kamenitsa in 1942-43, Fr. Gregory Volkov, who served in thevillage of Klenie and was killed in 1944, and Fr. John Voskoboynikov, who was captured onApril 5, 1945 near Zagreb in Croatia and disappeared without trace (Holy Trinity Calendar for1999).

11

German-Occupied Russia

On June 22, 1941, the feast of All Saints of Russia, the Nazis invadedRussia. The invasion had been prophesied by Elder Aristocles of Moscow in1911: “You will hear about it in that country where you will be at that time,you will hear that the Germans are rattling their sabres on the borders ofRussia… Only don’t rejoice yet. Many Russians will think that the Germanswill save Russia from the Bolshevik power, but it will not be so. True, theGermans will enter Russia and will do much, but they will depart, for thetime of salvation will not be yet. That will be later, later… Germany willsuffer her punishment in her own land. She will be divided…”16

In 1940 the holy Catacomb Elder Theodosius (Kashin) of Minvody said:“There’s going to be a war, such a terrible war, like the Terrible Judgement:people will perish, they have departed from the Lord, they have forgottenGod, and the wind of war will carry them away like ashes, and there will beno sign of them. But if anyone will call on God, the Lord will save him fromtrouble.”17

The war compelled the Soviets to try and reactivate an ethnically Russianpatriotism. Thus “Vyacheslav Molotov, the Foreign Minister, gave a radioaddress in which he spoke of the impending ‘patriotic war for homeland,honour and freedom’. The next day the main Soviet army newspaper,Krasnaia Zvezda, referred to it as a ‘holy war’. Communism was conspicuouslyabsent from Soviet propaganda in the war. It was fought in the name ofRussia, of the ‘family of peoples’ in the Soviet Union, of Pan-Slavbrotherhood, or in the name of Stalin, but never in the name of the communistsystem.”18

Such patriotic appeals were necessary because, as Overy writes, “by 1942 itwas evident that the Communist Party alone could not raise the energies ofthe people for a struggle of this depth and intensity. The war with Germanywas not like the war against the kulaks, or the war for greater production inthe 1930s, although the almost continuous state of popular mobilizationwhich these campaigns produced in some ways prepared the population torespond to emergency and improvisation. During 1942 the war was presentedas a war to save historic Russia, a nationalist war of revenge against amonstrous, almost mythical enemy. The words ‘Soviet Union’ and‘Communism’ appeared less and less frequently in official publications. Thewords ‘Russia’ and ‘Motherland’ took their place. The ‘Internationale’, theanthem of the international socialist movement played on state occasions, was

16 Quoted in Fomin, Rossia pered Vtorym Prishestviem (Russia before the Second Coming), SergievPosad, 1993, p. 237 ®.17 Chernov, Tserkov' Katakombnaia na Zemle Rossijskoj (The Catacomb Church in the Russian Land),MS, Woking, 1980 ®.18 Oliver Figes, Natasha’s Dance, London: Penguin, 2002, p. 489.

12

replaced with a new nationalist anthem. The habits of military egalitarianismingrained in the Red Army were swept aside. New medals were struckcommemorating the military heroes of Russia’s past; the Tsarist NevskyOrder was revived but could be won only by officers. Aleksandr Nevsky, theMuscovite prince who drove back the Teutonic Knights in the thirteenthcentury, was a singularly apt parallel. In 1938 Stalin had ordered SergeiEisenstein to produce a film on Nevsky. He interfered with the script to makethe message clear about the German threat (and the virtues ofauthoritarianism). In 1939 the film was withdrawn following the Nazi-Sovietpact, but in 1942 it again became essential viewing.”19

However, there was no genuine revival of Russian patriotism. Nor couldthere be, in spite of the modern peddling of the myth of “the Great FatherlandWar” as a great victory for Russian patriotism over a foreign invader. For, asAnton Kuznetsov writes, “from the very beginning the Bolsheviks showedthemselves to be an anti-Russian power, for which the concepts of Homeland,Fatherland, honour and duty do not exist; in whom the holy things of theRussian people elicit hatred; which replaced the word ‘Russia’ with the word‘Internationale’, and the Russian flag with the red banner; which even in itsnational composition was not Russian: it was dominated by Jews (theyconstituted a huge percentage, and at first it seemed as if it was a question ofa purely ‘Jewish power’) and foreigners.

“During the 24 years of its domination the Bolshevik (‘Soviet’) power hadhad enormous successes in the annihilation of historical Russia. All classeswere wiped out one by one: the nobility, the merchants, the peasantry, theclergy and the educated class (including all the Russian officers), and all thestate institutions of what had been Russia were destroyed: the army, thepolice, the courts, local administration, charitable institutions, etc. Asystematic annihilation of Russian culture was carried out – churches wereblown up, museums were robbed, towns and streets were renamed, Russianfamily and everyday traditions were exterminated, Russian sciences andschools were liquidated, the whole of Russian history was blotted out andspat upon. In the place of the annihilated Russian element a red and Sovietelement was created, beginning with the Red army and the Red professorsand ending with Soviet orthography and Soviet sport. Our earthly Fatherland,Russia, was in fact destroyed, by terror she was transformed into theSovdepia, which was a complete denial of Russia – it was anti-Russia. ARussian person has no right to forget that a consistent denial of Russianstatehood is that on which the Soviet regime stood and on which it prideditself with emphasis.

“One has no right to call such a regime a national power. It must bedefined as an anti-national, occupying power, the overthrow of which everyhonourable patriot can only welcome.

19 Overy, op. cit., pp. 161-162.

13

“… The antinational and antipopular essence of the Red (Soviet) army isclear to everyone who has come into more or less close contact with this army.

“Every Russian who has preserved his national memory will agree that theWorkers and Peasants Red Army (RKKA) never was either the continuer of thetraditions, nor the successor by right, of the Russian Imperial Army (that is whatthe White army was and remains to this day). The Red army was created bythe Bolsheviks in the place of the Russian Army that they had destroyed.Moreover, the creators, leaders and backbone of the personal make-up of thisarmy were either open betrayers of the Homeland, or breakers of their oathand deserters from the Russian Army. This army dishonoured itself in theCivil war by pillaging and the killing of our Russian officers and generals andby unheard-of violence against the Russian people. At its creation it was filledwith a criminal rabble, village riff-raff, red guards, sailors, and also withChinese, Hungarians, Latvians and other ‘internationalists’. In the make-up ofthe Red army the communists constituted: in 1920 – 10.5%, in 1925 – 40.8%, in1930 – 52%, and from the end of the 30s all the command posts were occupiedby communists and members of the komsomol. This army was stuffed withNKVD informants and political guides, its destinies were determined bycommissars, the majority of whom were Jews; it represented, not a nationalArmy, but the party army of the Bolshevik Communist Party (B) – theCommunist Party of the Soviet Union. The slogan of this army was not ‘Forthe Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland!’, but ‘Give us the Internationale!’ Thisarmy was created from the beginning, not for the defence, but for theenslavement of our Fatherland and in order to turn it into ‘the launch-pad ofworld revolution’; it had to wage an aggressive war against it for thespreading of antitheist communism throughout the world…

“But of course the most terrible blow at this myth is delivered by theRussian Liberation Army [ROA] in the Second World War, which is called‘the Vlasovites’ by Soviet patriots. The very fact that at various times 1,000,000(one million!) Soviet citizens served in the German Wermacht must cut off alltalk of a ‘great fatherland’ war, for in fact: where, when and in whatFatherland war do people in such numbers voluntarily pass over to the side ofthe opponent and fight in his ranks? Soviet patriots find nothing cleverer tosay than to declare these people innate traitors, self-seekers and cowards. Thisis a blatant lie, but even if it were true, it remains complete incomprehensiblewhy Russia never knew such a massive ‘betrayal’ in her history. How manywars has Russia waged, and never have there been so many traitors, turncoatsand ‘self-seekers’ among us. And yet it was enough for the ‘Fatherland’ warto begin and not just a simple one, but a ‘Great’ one, and hundreds ofthousands of people with weapons in their hands passed over to the side of

14

the enemy. Moreover, people were enlisting in the ROA even in 1945, whenthe fall of Hitler’s Germany and the victory of Stalin was evident…”20

As the Bolsheviks retreated, “the NKVD carried out a programme ofliquidation of all the prisoners sitting in their jails. In the huge Lukyanovprison in Kiev thousands were shot in their cells. But in Stavropol they stillhad time to take the ‘contras’, including several old priests and monks, out ofthe city. They were led out onto the railway line from Kislovodsk to Moscow.At the small station of Mashuk, where the poet Lermontov had his duel, thewagons containing the prisoners were uncoupled from the trains and shuntedinto a siding at Kamenolomnya. Then the priests and monks were taken outwith their hands bound and their eyes covered. In groups of five they wereled to the edge of a sheer cliff, and thrust over the edge. Then the bodies werelifted up with hooks and covered with crushed stone and sand before atractor levelled the area for the next wagon-full...”21

The Germans were in general greeted with ecstatic joy. Thus Solzhenitsynwrites: “Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia gave the Germans a jubilant welcome.Belorussia, the Western Ukraine, and the first occupied Russian territoriesfollowed suit. But the mood of the people was demonstrated most graphicallyof all by the Red Army: before the eyes of the whole world it retreated along a2,000-kilometre front, on foot, but every bit as fast as motorized units.Nothing could possibly be more convincing than the way these men, soldiersin their prime, voted with their feet. Numerical superiority was entirely withthe Red Army, they had excellent artillery and a strong tank force, yet backthey rolled, a rout without compare, unprecedented in the annals of Russianand world history. In the first few months some three million officers andmen had fallen into enemy hands!

“That is what the popular mood was like – the mood of peoples some ofwhom had lived through twenty-four years of communism and others but asingle year. For them the whole point of this latest war was to cast off thescourge of communism. Naturally enough, each people was primarily bentnot on resolving any European problem but on its own national task –liberation from communism…”22

20 Kuznetsov, “O Sovietsko-Germanskoj Vojne” (On the Soviet-German War),http://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=print page&pid=570, pp. 3-4, 7-8 ®.A. Soldatov writes: “The memory of the ‘Vlasovtsy’ is dear to many children of the RussianChurch Abroad (ROCOR)… In the memorial cemetery of ROCOR in Novo Diveyevo nearNew York there stands an obelisk which perpetuates the memory of all the officers andsoldiers of the Russian Army of Liberation, who perished ‘in the name of the idea of a Russiafree from communism and fascism” (“Radosti Paskhi i Skorb’ Pobedy” (The Joys of Paschaand the Sorrow of Victory)), Moskovskie Novosti (Moscow News) and Vertograd, № 520, May 14, 2005 ®.21 Chernov, op. cit.22 Solzhenitsyn, The Mortal Danger, London: The Bodley Head, 1980, pp. 39-40.

15

“In the years of the war,” writes Anatoly Krasikov, “with the agreement ofthe German occupying authorities, 7547 Orthodox churches were opened (asagainst 1270 opened in 1944-1947 with the permission of the Council for theAffairs of the Russian Orthodox Church).”23 Even in fully Sovietized regionssuch as Pskov and the Eastern Ukraine, 95% of the population, according toGerman reports, flooded into the newly-opened churches.

There was also a revival in Transnistria, the formerly Soviet regionbetween the Dniestr and Bug rivers that had come under the control of theGermans’ allies, the Romanians. In September, 1941 the Romaniannewcalendarist church sent a mission there under Archimandrite Julius(Skriban) which opened many churches and monasteries. However, it alsointroduced the new calendar and the Romanian language even in mainlyUkrainian areas. The Ukrainian Autocephalous and Autonomous Churcheswere not allowed to operate in these regions by the Romanian authorities.This elicited protests from the Slavic believers.24

The Pskov Mission and the Catacomb Church

In the Baltic region, the Germans were quite happy to deal with the MP’sexarch, Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), who quickly showed his loyaltyto them.25 He immediatedly proceeded to bless the formation of an “Orthodoxmission in the liberated regions of Russia”, otherwise known as the “PskovOrthodox Mission”, whose official aim was the restoration of church life“destroyed by Soviet power”. This mission, staffed mainly be members of theEulogian jurisdiction, included within its jurisdiction parts of the Leningradand Kalinin regions, as well as the Pskov and Novgorod regions, with apopulation of about two million people.

Its third head was Protopriest Cyril Zaits, whose activity, according toVasilyeva, “suited both the exarch and the occupation authorities. Themission supplied its own material needs, supplementing its resources fromthe profits of its economic section (which included a candle factory, a shop forchurch utensils and an icon studio) and from 10% of the deductions comingfrom the parishes. Its monthly profits of 3-5000 marks covered the expenses ofthe administration, while the remaining money of the mission went onproviding for theological courses in Vilnius.

“Priests were needed to restore church life in a number of parishes. And ashe accompanied the missionaries [who were graduates of a theological

23 Krasikov, “’Tretij Rim’ i Bol’sheviki” (The Third Rome and the Bolsheviks), in L.M.Vorontsova, A.V. Pchelintsev and S.B. Filatov (eds.), Religia i Prava Cheloveka (Religion andHuman Rights), Moscow: “Nauka”, 1996, p. 203 ®.24 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 31-32.25 In Latvia, Metropolitan Augustine asked the Germans to allow him to re-establish theLatvian Church within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. But they refused…

16

seminary in Western Europe], … the exarch said: ‘Don’t forget that you havecome to a country where in the course of more than twenty years religion hasbeen poisoned and persecuted in the most pitiless manner, where the peopleare frightened, humiliated, harried and depersonalised. You will have notonly to restore church life, but also to arouse the people to new life from itshibernation of many years, explaining and pointing out to them theadvantages and merits of the new life which is opening up for them.’”26

At the beginning the mission had only two open churches, one in Pskovand one in Gdov. But in November, 1942, Metropolitan Sergius succeeded inopening a theological seminary in Vilnius led by Protopresbyter BaslVinogradov.27 And by 1944 there were 200 parishes and 175 priests.28 Lectureswere read on Pskov radio, help was given to Soviet prisoners of war, and achildren’s home was created in the church of St. Demetrius in Pskov. Theregion, on the insistence of Metropolitan Sergius (an NKVD agent, after all),remained ecclesiastically part of the Leningrad diocese under MetropolitanAlexis (Simansky), whose name was commemorated in each service, untilanti-German leaflets signed by Alexis were dropped by the Soviet air force onthe territory. While remaining formally within the MP, Metropolitan Sergius(Voskresensky) carried out the commands of the Germans. For example, inthe summer of 1943 he ordered that a thanksgiving service with theparticipation of all the clergy should take place in Pskov to mark theGermans’ handing back of the land into the hands of the peasantry.

The True Church also benefited from the German invasion. The Kiev-Caves Lavra was reopened, and Catacomb Schema-Archbishop Anthony(Abashidze) returned to it with his monks. Archbishop Anthony stayed thereuntil his death in 1942.29 Also in Kiev, Archimandrite Michael (Kostyuk),together with Schema-Abbess Michaela (Shelkina), directed a largecommunity of catacomb monks and nuns. They were even able to build anabove-ground church with the permission of the Germans.30

Josephite parishes continued to exist in German-occupied Russia. ThusHieromonk Tikhon (Zorin), like other Josephite clergy, refused to work withthe Pskov mission, but recognized the German authorities. But the Pskovmission was hostile to the Catacomb Church. Thus one of the priests of thePskov mission, Protopriest Nicholas Zhundy, was appointed superior of theparish in the village of Meletovo, where the Josephite Hieromonk Sergius(Samsonik) was also serving. In December, 1942 he received the commandfrom the mission “in every way to counteract the activities of the Josephite

26 O. Vasilieva, "Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' v 1927-1943 godakh" (The RussianOrthodox Church from 1927 to 1943), Voprosy Istorii (Questions of History), 1994, № 4, p. 44 ®.27 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 46.28 According to another source, the mission had 221 churches and 84 priests to serve in them.29 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 32.30 Chernov, op. cit.; A. Smirnov, “Ugasshie nepominaiushchie v bege vremeni” (ExtinguishedNon-Commemorators in the Flow of Time), Simvol (Symbol), № 40, 1998, pp. 250-267 ®.

17

priest”. He was able to carry out this command, “having sorted out parish lifein Meletovo”. Nothing more was ever heard of Fr. Sergius…31

“On the whole,” writes M.V. Shkvarovsky, “the Catacomb Church inNorth-West Russia preferred to remain underground. The point was that the‘Pskov Orthodox Mission’ (1941-1943), which existed with the permission ofthe commanding officers of the army group ‘North’, was in canonicalsubmission to the Moscow Patriarchate and tried to winkle out the secretcommunities. Schema-Bishop Macarius (Vasilyev), who settled in the Pskov-Caves monastery at the end of 1941, foretold the unsuccessful end of the warfor Germany. Together with the secret Bishop of Pskov John (Lozhkov), hetried to enter into relations with Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade) of Berlin andGermany, who belonged to ROCOR. However, the hieromonk whom he sent,Nicephorus (Richter-Mellin) was detained in Konigsberg on a train and sentback.

“The well-known historian of the Catacomb Church I. Andreyev(Andreyevsky) wrote that in spite of the insistent demands of the exarch ofthe Baltic, Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), the True Orthodox priests,who began to serve in some of the opened churches, refused to commemoratethe patriarchal locum tenens. ‘Thus, for example, in the city of Soltsy inNovgorod diocese the mitre-bearing Protopriest Fr. V., former dean of thechurches of the city of Minsk, who then became a catacomb priest, in spite ofthe very severe command of the dean of the Novgorod region Fr. BasilRushanov, categorically refused to commemorate the Soviet MetropolitanSergius. This was in 1942. And in 1943 and 1944 Fr. B. began to commemorateMetropolitan Anastasy [Gribanovsky].’

“The fact that most of the communities of the True Orthodox Christians inLeningrad region during the occupation remained underground allowedthem to continue their activity even after the end of the war, in spite of thedeaths of their leaders…

“In a series of other regions of the country the German High Commandwas more favourably disposed to the Catacomb Christians: in Bryansk, Oreland Voronezh districts, and also in Belorussia, the Crimea and on the Don.”32

31 M.V. Shkvarovsky, “Iosiflyane v Severo-Zapade Rossii v period nemetskoj okkupatsii” (TheJosephites in North-West Russia during the German Occupation), Pravoslavnaia Rus’(Orthodox Russia), № 14 (1755), July 15/28, 2004, pp. 12-13 ®.32 Shkvarovsky, Iosiflianstvo: techenie v Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi (Josephitism: a tendency in theRussian Orthodox Church), St. Petersburg: Memorial, 1999, pp. 187-188; Archbishop Ambrose(von Sievers), "Istoki i sviazi Katakombnoj Tserkvi v Leningrade i obl. (1922-1992)" (Sourcesand Links of the Catacomb Church in Leningrad and district (1922-1992), report read at theconference "The Historical Path of Orthodoxy in Russia after 1917", Saint Petersburg, 1-3 June,1993; “Episkopat Istinno-Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi 1922-1997gg.” (The Episcopate of the TrueOrthodox Church, 1922-1997), Russkoe Pravoslavie (Russian Orthodoxy), № 4 (8), 1997, pp. 12-13®.

18

Perhaps for this reason, on July 7, 1944, as the Red Army returned to theoccupied territories, Beria wrote to Stalin asking permission for thedeportation of 1,673 Catacomb Christians from the Ryazan, Voronezh andOrel regions to Siberia. He described the Catacomb Christians as “leading aparasitical way of life, not paying taxes, refusing to fulfil their obligations andservice, and forbidding their children to go to school.”33 As Bishop Irinarchusof Tula and Briansk (Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church) witnesses: “In1943, according to the personal order of Stalin, several hundred CatacombOrthodox Christians were removed from Tula and Ryazan regions and sent toSiberia. Many of them perished, but not all, glory to God. In Tula region theyhave been preserved to this day [2004]. The Lord entrusted them to me, andwith God’s help I am spiritually caring for them…

“Before the war only a few Catacomb priests were surviving in Brianskregion. But when the region was occupied by the Germans, several hundredchurches were opened in it, where they commemorated, not MetropolitanSergius (Stragorodsky) as first hierarch, but Metropolitan Anastasy, the headof ROCOR. In Briansk region the Catacomb Christians were served by BishopStefan (Sevbo). Under the pressure of the red army Bishop Stefan and manyclergy and laity emigrated to Belorussia, and then to Germany. VladykaStefan later ruled the Viennese diocese of ROCOR, and died in 1965.”34

M.V. Shkarovsky writes that “the activity of the True Orthodox Christiansseriously worried the higher leadership of the country. It receiveddiscouraging reports about a significant rise in the influence of the catacombmovement in the first years of the war. Thus the July, 1943 specialcommunication of the head of the NKVD Administration in Penza provincespoke of the activity of more than 20 illegal and semi-illegal groups thatarranged prayers in private flats. In some region there were hundreds of thesegroups. In the report of the president of the Council for the affairs of theRussian Orthodox Church, G. Karpov, to V. Molotov dated October 5, 1944, itwas emphasised: ‘In the provinces with an insignificant number offunctioning churches, and in the regions where there are no churches, amassive spreading of group worship in the homes of believers or in the openair has been noticed… Moreover, in these case, believers invite clergy who arenot registered to carry out the rit… A significant part of the activists of theseunregistered church groups, together with their clergy, are hostile to the legalpatriarchal church, condemning the latter for its loyal relationship to Sovietpower and for its patriotic stance…’”35

33 I.F. Bugayem, "Varvarskaia aktsia" (A Barbaric Action), Otechestvo (Fatherland), № 3, 1992, pp. 53-73 ®; text in Shkvarovsky, Iosiflyanstvo, op. cit., pp. 262-263.34 “Interviu s episkopom Irinarkhom Tul’skim i Brianskim (RPATs)” (Interview with BishopIrinarch of Tula and Briansk (ROAC), Vertograd, № 440, 10 March, 2004 ®.35 Shkarovsky, Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ pri Staline i Khruscheve (The Russian OrthodoxChurch under Stalin and Khruschev), Moscow, 2005, pp. 250-251 ®.

19

The Church in Belorussia and Ukraine

In Belorussia, the Germans tried to create an autocephalous BelorussianChurch that would be independent of both Great Russian and Polishinfluence (Catholic Poles were doing a lot of missionary work in the region).To this end, on October 3, 1941 Metropolitan Panteleimon (Rozhnevsky) andBishop Benedict of Brest were allowed them to create an independentBelorussian Church (to be called “Autocephalous”) whose internal life wouldbe free from interference from the German authorities and in which serviceswould be in Church Slavonic, but whose preaching and ecclesiasticalcorrespondence would be in Belorussian. The two bishops accepted theseconditions and on October 6 officially published “Act № 1 of the proceedings of the Council of the Belorussian Orthodox Church”. Archbishop Panteleimonwas to move from the Zhirovitsky monastery to Minsk, be called“Metropolitan of Minsk and All Russia” and open a theological seminary.36

However, according to one source, neither the metropolitan nor themajority of the Orthodox in Belorussia were willing to break ties with the MP,and at a Council in Minsk in 1942 the Synod of what we may call theBelorussian Autonomous Church insisted that the autocephaly of theirChurch would have to be approved by the other Autocephalous Churches.This displeased the Germans; they appointed Bishop Philotheus of Slutsk inthe place of Metropolitan Panteleimon, who was exiled to the monastery ofLyade.37 According to another source, however, Metropolitan Panteleimon atfirst refused to accept the idea of a Belorussian Autonomous Church incommunion with the MP, and refused to concelebrate with the MP’s exarch inthe Baltic, Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky). And that was why the morepliable Bishop Philotheus of Slutsk was appointed as de facto head of theChurch in Belorussia.38

“In August-September 1942,” writes Michael Woerl, “under pressure fromboth the Germans and their Belorussian nationalist cohorts, ArchbishopPhilotheus summoned a council of the Belorussian Church with the blessingof Metropolitan Panteleimon, but only he, Bishop Athanasius, and BishopStefan (Sevbo)… were allowed to take part. On the question of the BelorussianChurch declaring itself to be autocephalous, the bishops stated that this couldnot be done without the knowledge and agreement of the other localChurches, which they knew would be impossible because, among other

36 Archbishop Athanasius (Martos); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 33.37 See Mikhail Woerl, “Dobrij Pastyr’” (A Good Pastor), Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia),№ 24 (1597), December 15/28, 1997, p. 7; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 43 ®.38 Archbishop Ambrose (von Sievers), “Bezobrazniki: K sobytiam v RPTsZ 1945-55gg.”(Hooligans: on the events in ROCOR, 1945-55), Russkoe Pravoslavie (Russian Orthodoxy), № 2 (16), 1999, p. 18 ®.

20

things, a world war was in progress.39 However, a letter addressed to theheads of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches was signed by MetropolitanPanteleimon and given to the German authorities, but it was never sent.

“Archbishop Philotheus and his fellow hierarchs persistently sought thereturn of Metropolitan Panteleimon, who finally was allowed by the Germansto return to Minsk in April of 1943. In May of 1944, the council of bishops met,and rejected the idea of seeking the autocephaly that had been attempted bythe nationalistic element.”40

Throughout this period, the Belorussian Church had no contact with theMP - the Germans forbade the commemoration of Sergius. So formallyspeaking the Belorussians were not part of the MP. Moreover, in October,1943, they were represented by a bishop and a priest at a ROCOR Council inVienna, so de facto they were now in communion with ROCOR. At thatcouncil the election of Metropolitan Sergius as “Patriarch” was condemned asuncanonical, and a bishop, George, was consecrated for the see of Gomel andMozyr by ROCOR.41 Another Belorussian hierarch, Bishop Stefan (Sevbo) ofSmolensk, had good relations with the Catacomb Church.42 And after fleeing

39 Nevertheless, they did call the Church “autocephalous”: “The first All-BelorussianOrthodox Church Council in history meeting in Minsk in the name of the OrthodoxBelorussians sends you, Mr. Reich-Chancellor, heartfelt gratitude for the liberation ofBelorussia from the Muscovite-Bolshevik yoke, for giving us the opportunity freely toorganize our religious life in the form of the Holy Belorussian Orthodox AutocephalousChurch, and desires the speediest and complete victory to your unconquerable arms.” (V.M.)40 Woerl, “A Brief Biography of Archbishop Filofei (Narko)”, Orthodox Life, vol. 50, № 6,November-December, 2000, pp. 25-26.41 Woerl, “Dobrij Pastyr’”, op. cit., p. 8. George later became bishop of Chicago and Detroit.See “Episkop Vasilij Venskij – 1880-1945gg.” (Bishop Basil of Vienna – 1880-1945),Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia), № 18 (1663), September 14/27, 2000, p. 5 ®.

According to Reader Gregory Mukhortov (personal communication, 1990), the Belorussiansynod consecrated another bishop, Theodosius (Bakhmetev), just before the arrival of theSoviets late in 1944. However, according to the anonymous author of Kto est’ kto v rossijskikhkatakombakh (Who’s Who in the Russian Catacombs), (St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 36-37 ®),Theodosius was consecrated in 1942 or 1943 as vicar-bishop of Pinsk, which at that timeentered the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Autonomous Church, in the Kiev Caves Lavra bySchema-Archbishop Anthony (Abashidze), Archbishop Panteleimon (Rudyk) and theCatacomb Bishops Elias and Macarius.42 “Good, albeit also not unambiguous relations were established between the True OrthodoxChristians and the Belorussian Church. In particular, thanks precisely to the catacombniki theBelorussian Church took a more anti-patriarchal stand and entered into conflict withMetropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), who was trying to infiltrate his people into Belorussia.The most ardent relations were with Bishop Stefan (Sevbo) of Smolensk (+1963), who evenordained several priests for the True Orthodox Christians and of whom a good memory waspreserved in the ‘catacombs’. It was precisely in Smolensk province and Mozhaisk district inMoscow province that the True Orthodox Christians became so active that they regeneratedand greatly increased their flock, which had become very thin on the ground since therepressions of 1937” (Archbishop Ambrose (von Sievers), “Istinno-Pravoslavnie Khristiane iVojna 1941-1945gg.” (True Orthodox Christians and the War, 1941-1945), Russkoe Pravoslavie(Russian Orthodoxy), № 1 (15), 1999, pp. 23-24 ®).

21

to the West after the war the entire episcopate was received into ROCOR “intheir existing rank” on April 23 / May 6, 1946.43

In Ukraine, the Germans allowed the creation of two Churchesindependent of the MP. The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church was in essencea reactivation of the Lypkivsky “self-consecrators’” schism, which hadflourished in the Ukraine in the 1920s before being eliminated by Stalin, viathe Polish Autocephalous Church. Thus on December 24, 1941, MetropolitanDionysius of Warsaw, at the request of Ukrainian political and social-ecclesiastical activists, appointed Archbishop Polycarp (Sikorsky) of Lutsk as“Temporary Administrator of the Orthodox Autocephalous Church on theliberated lands of Ukraine”.44 Into this Church, without reordination, pouredthe remnants of the Lypkivsky schism, which soon led it onto the path ofextreme Ukrainian nationalism. About 40% of the Orthodox in the Ukrainewere attracted into this Church, which was especially strong in the home ofUkrainian nationalism in the West; but it had no monastic life, and very soondeparted from traditional Orthodoxy.

On August 18, 1941, a Council of Bishops meeting in the Pochaevmonastery elected Metropolitan Alexis (Gromadsky) as leader of theUkrainian Autonomous Church, which based her existence on the decision ofthe 1917-18 Local Council of the Russian Church granting the UkrainianChurch autonomy within the framework of the Russian Church. Although theGermans tended to favour the Autocephalous Church over the AutonomousChurch, it was the latter that attracted the majority of believers (55%) andopened the most churches. It even attracted catacomb priests, such asArchimandrite Leontius (Filippovich), who after his consecration as Bishop ofZhitomir restored about 50% of the pre-revolutionary parishes in his dioceseand ordained about two hundred priests, including the future leader of the“Seraphimo-Gennadiite” branch of the Catacomb Church, Gennadius Sekach,before he (Leontius) himself fled westwards with the Germans and joinedROCOR.45 Also linked with the Autonomous Churches was the GeorgianSchema-Archbishop Anthony (Abashidze), who lived in retirement in Kievand may have taken part in the consecration of the future leader of theCatacomb Church in Siberia, Bishop Theodosius (Bakhmetev).

43 The whole of the Ukrainian Autonomous Church was also received into the ROCOR at thistime. See Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia), № 20 (1545), October 15/28, 1995, p. 4;Alexeyev, W. and Stavrou, T., The Great Revival, op. cit. , chapter 4.44 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 35.45 Alexeyev & Stavrou, The Great Revival, op. cit., chapter 5; Friedrich Heyer, Die OrthodoxeKirche in der Ukraine (The Orthodox Church in the Ukraine), Koln: Rudolf Muller, 1953 (inGerman); "Archbishop Leonty of Chile", The Orthodox Word, 1981, vol. 17, № 4 (99), pp. 148-154; Bishop John and Igumen Elijah, Taynij Skhimitropolit (The Secret Schema-Metropolitan),Moscow: Bogorodichij Tsentr, 1991; Andrei Psarev, "Zhizneopisanie Arkhiepiskopa LeontiaChilijskij (1901-1971 gg.)" (A Life of Archbishop Leontius of Chile (1901-1971)), PravoslavnaiaZhizn' (Orthodox Life), № 4 (556), April, 1996, pp. 9-14 ®.

22

Andrew Psarev writes: “The Ukrainian Autonomous Church was formallysubject to the Moscow Patriarchate, insofar as her leading hierarchsconsidered that they did not have the canonical right to declare themselves anautocephaly. But since the Moscow Patriarchate was subject to the Bolsheviks,in her administrative decisions the Autonomous Church was completelyindependent, which is why her spiritual condition was different from that ofthe Moscow Patriarchate.”46

On March 30, 1942 the Autonomous Church sent an Archpastoral Epistle toits children, declaring that the newly formed autocephalists were to beconsidered as “the Lipkovtsy sect”, and all the clergy ordained by them –graceless. In consequence, and because the Autonomous Church did not goalong with the extreme nationalist politics of the autocephalists, it sufferedpersecution in the German-occupied regions both from the autocephalists andthe Ukrainian nationalist “Benderite” partisans, who had formed an alliance.Thus S. Raevsky writes: “The autocephalist bishop in Rovno, PlatonArtemiuk, was closely linked with the Benderite centre in Derman; he twicewent to their headquarters and was twice triumphantly received by them,going between two rows of Benderite youngsters dressed in Gestapo-likeuniforms, and sat at a meal with them. Here at the centre it was decided to killthe head of the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church, MetropolitanAlexis (Gromadsky), and the resolution was put into effect on May 7, 1943.

“The Benderites also killed another hierarch of the Autonomous Church,Manuel (Tarnavsky), who was taken from his flat in Vladimir in Volhynia atnight and hanged in the wood [on July 9/22]. The Benderites mercilesslyliquidated the older priests who did not want to betray their oath and enterinto the Ukrainian Autocephaly, while the younger ones were beaten almostto death and expelled from their parishes. So many older priests perished,receiving martyric deaths for standing on guard for Orthodoxy. As anexample we may speak about the martyric death of the elder and protopriestMeletius Ryzhkovsky in the village of Malaya Moschanka, in Dubensk uyezd,who refused to serve services in Ukrainian. The Benderites arrived at hishouse and began to beat him, then cut him up with knives, before casting himstill half alive head first into a well.”47

Although the period of revival of ecclesiastical life in these regions wasbrief, it had important consequences for the future. First, many of thechurches reopened in this period were not again closed by the Soviets whenthey returned. Secondly, some of those bishops and priests who could not, or

46 Psarev, op. cit., p. 10. The Ukrainian Autonomous Church was also represented at theROCOR’s Council in Vienna in 1943, which condemned the election of Sergius as uncanonical(Woerl, op. cit.).47 Raevsky, Ukrainskaia Avtokephalnaia Tserkov’ (The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church),Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1948, p. 15; M.E. Gubonin, Akty Sviateishago PatriarkhaTikhona (The Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon), Moscow, 1994, pp. 960, 979 ®; MonkBenjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 50.

23

chose not to, escape westwards after the war went underground and helpedto keep the Catacomb Church alive in the post-war period. And thirdly,ROCOR received an injection of new bishops and priests from those who fledwestwards to Germany in the closing stages of the war.

ROCOR and the Germans

It was natural for ROCOR to welcome the resurrection of Orthodoxy in theGerman-occupied territories. Thus in his paschal epistle for 1942 MetropolitanAnastasy wrote: “The day that they (the Russian people) expected has come,and it is now truly rising from the dead in those places where the courageousGerman sword has succeeded in severing its fetters… Both ancient Kiev, andmuch-suffering Smolensk and Pskov are radiantly celebrating theirdeliverance as if from the depths of hell. The liberated part of the Russianpeople everywhere has already begun to chant: ‘Christ is risen!’”48

In June, the ROCOR Synod made some suggestions to the Germanauthorities on the organization of the Church in Russia. In June it wrote: “…Inthe spirit of the canons of the Orthodox Church there exists only one solutionin the question of the organization of the Church’s administration, and that isthe convening of a Council of Russian hierarchs by the eldest among themand the appointment by this Council of a temporary head of the Church andof the rest of the Church administration.” The final organization of thegoverning organs and the election of a Patriarch could take place, in theopinion of the Synod, only when ‘hierarchs will be appointed to all the vacantsees and normal relations are established in the country”.49

However, the attitude of the Germans to the Orthodox Faith wasambiguous. Hitler was “utterly irreligious”50, but feigned religious tolerancefor political reasons. Thus “the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity,” hesaid, “was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimatechild. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in religion wasintroduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of thesame nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, only to enslave them."51

But at the same time he recognized that Christianity "can't be broken sosimply. It must rot and die off like a gangrened limb." And on April 11, 1942,he said: "We must avoid having one solitary church to satisfy the religiousneeds of large districts, and each village must be made into an independentsect, worshipping God in its own fashion. If some villages as a result wish topractise black magic, after the fashion of Negroes or Indians, we should do

48 Tserkovnaia Zhizn’ (Church Life), 1942, № 4; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 41.49 Synodal Archive of the ROCOR in New York, d. 15/41, l.27-30; Monk Benjamin, op. cit.,part 3, p. 44.50 Richard Overy, Russia’s War, London: Penguin Books, 1999, p. 162.51 Cited in Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin, London: Harper Collins, 1991, p. 801.

24

nothing to hinder them. In short, our policy in the wide Russian spacesshould be to encourage any and every form of dissension and schism."52

The Germans wanted to prepare new priestly cadres who would conformto their views on the Jews. On October 31, 1941 a directive went out from theMain Administration of Imperial Security for the Reich: “The resolution of theecclesiastical question in the occupied eastern provinces is an exceptionallyimportant… task, which with a little skill can be magnificently solved infavour of a religion that is free from Jewish influence. However, this influenceis predicated on the closing of churches in the eastern provinces that areinfected with Jewish dogmas…”53

One thing the Germans did not want was the resurrection of the GreatRussian people through the Church. On May 16, 1942 A. Rosenburg, the headof the ministry of the East, said in Riga to a meeting of General and SecurityCommissars: “The Russian Orthodox Church was a political instrument of thepower of tsarism, and now our political task consists in creating otherecclesiastical forms where the Russian Church used to exist. In any case wewill hinder the Great Russian Orthodox Church from lording it over all thenationalitie… We should think more about introducing the Latin scriptinstead of the Russian. Therefore it is also appropriate that some churchesshould remain as far as possible restricted to the province of one GeneralCommissar… It is also appropriate for Estonia and Latvia that they shouldhave their own national churches…”54

Again, on August 8, 1942 the head of the German General Commissariatwrote to Archbishop Philotheus, temporary head of the Belorussian Church,forbidding the baptism of Jews, the opening of work-houses attached tomonasteries, the opening of theological seminaries and academies without thepermission of the German authorities and the teaching of the Law of God inschool. He also removed the juridical status of Church marriages. It wasbecoming clear that the authorities were not intending to give any rights tothe Orthodox Church in Belorussia.55

On August 12, Archbishop Seraphim (Lyade) wrote from Vienna toMetropolitan Anastasy: “With regard to the question of sending priests toRussia: unfortunately, according to all available data, the higher governmentauthorities are so far not well-disposed towards a positive solution of thisquestion. I made several petitions, but without success. In all probability, the

52 Cited by W. Alexeyev and T. Stavrou, The Great Revival, Minneapolis: Burgess PublishingCo., 1979, pp. 60-61.53 I. Altman, Kholokost i evrejskoe soprotivlenie na okkupirovannoj territorii SSSR (The Holocaustand Jewish resistance in the occupied territories of the USSR); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3,p. 34.54 Shkarovsky, Pravoslavie i Rossia (Orthodoxy and Russia); Monk Benjamin, op. cit. , part 3,pp. 41-42.55 Archbishop Athanasius (Martos); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 45.

25

authorities suspect that the clergy from abroad are bearers of a politicalideology that is unacceptable for the German authorities at the present time. Idid not even succeed in getting permission to transfer several priests toGermany from abroad (for example, Fr. Rodzianko), and according to theinformation I have received permission was not given because these priestssupposedly worked together with émigré political organizations.”56

On October 21, 1943, with the permission of the Germans (the first timethey had given such permission), Metropolitan Anastasy came to Vienna fromBelgrade and convened a Conference of bishops (Seraphim (Lukyanov),Seraphim (Lyade), Benedict (Bobkovsky), Basil (Pavlovsky), Philip (vonGardner), Gregory (Boriskevich)). On October 25 the bishops condemned theelection of the patriarch as unlawful and invalid, comparing Sergius’compromises to the third temptation of the Saviour, “to whom Satanpromised to give all the kingdoms of the world if He would worship him”.57

“The conference composed and sent to the German authorities amemorandum which contained a series of bold demands. The memorandumis the best proof of the fact that the Conference took decisions independently,and not at the command of the Nazis. In it first of all should be highlightedthe protest against the Nazis’ not allowing the Russian clergy abroad to go tothe occupied territories of the USSR. The memorandum demanded ‘theremoval of all obstacles hindering the free movement of bishops from thisside of the front’, and the reunion of bishop ‘on occupied territories andabroad’. (A.K. Nikitin, Polozhenie russkoj pravoslavnoj obschiny v Germanii vperiod natsistkogo rezhima (1933-1945 gg.) [The Situation of the RussianOrthodox Community in Germany in the Nazi period (1933-1945)], AnnualTheological Conference PSTBI, Moscow, 1998). A vivid expression of thisprotest was the consecration by the participants of the Conference of BishopGregory (Boriskevich). He was consecrated for the Belorussian AutonomousChurch and received the title of Bishop of Gomel and Mozyr. At the Councilan appeal to Russian believers was agreed. The conference did not send anygreetings to Hitler or other leaders of the Third Reich. The third agreed pointwas unexpected for the Nazi institutions. De facto it contained a critique ofGerman policy in relation to the Russian Church and included demands forgreater freedom: ‘(1) The free development and strengthening of theOrthodox Church in the occupied regions and the unification of all Orthodoxecclesiastical provinces liberated from Soviet power with the OrthodoxChurch Abroad under one common ecclesiastical leadership would serve asan earnest of the greater success of these parts of the Russian Church in thestruggle with atheist communism… (3) It is necessary to give Russianworkers in Germany free satisfaction of all their spiritual needs. (4) In view ofthe great quantity of various Russian military units in the German army, it isnecessary to create an institution of military priests… (6) A more energetic

56 ROCOR Synodal Archive in New York, d. 15/41, l.27-30; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3,pp. 45-46.57 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 63-64.

26

preaching of the Orthodox religio-moral world-view… (9) Petition for theintroduction of apologetic programmes on the radio… (10) The organizationof theological libraries attached to the parishes… (13) Giving Orthodoxecclesiastical authorities the possibility of opening theological schools and theorganization of pastoral and religio-moral courses.’”58

As the war progressed and the behaviour of the Germans became steadilymore cruel, the attitude of the Russian Orthodox to them changed. This isreflected in the words of Metropolitan Anastasy in October, 1945, in responseto Patriarch Alexis’ charge that ROCOR sympathised with the Nazis: “… ThePatriarch is not right to declare that ‘the leaders of the ecclesiastical life of theRussian emigration’ performed public prayers for the victories of Hitler’. TheHierarchical Synod never prescribed such prayers and even forbade them,demanding that Russian people prayed at that time only for the salvation ofRussia. Of course, it is impossible to conceal the now well-known fact that,exhausted by the hopelessness of their situation and reduced almost todespair by the terror reigning in Russia, Russian people both abroad and inRussia itself placed hopes on Hitler, who declared an irreconcilable waragainst communism (as is well-known, this is the explanation for the masssurrender of the Russian armies into captivity at the beginning of the war),but when it became evident that he was in fact striving to conquer Ukraine,Crimea and the Caucasus and other rich regions of Russia, and that he notonly despised the Russian people, but was even striving to annihilate it, andthat in accordance with his command our prisoners had been starved todeath, and that the German army during its retreat had burned and destroyedto their foundations Russian cities and villages on their path, and had killedor led away their population, and had condemned hundreds of thousands ofJews with women and children to death, forcing them to dig graves forthemselves, then the hearts of all reasonable people – except those who‘wanted to be deceived’ - turned against him…”59

G.M. Soldatov writes: “It was suggested to the metropolitan [by theGermans] that he issue an appeal to the Russian people calling on them tocooperate with the German army, which was going on a crusade to liberateRussia from the Bolsheviks. If he were to refuse to make the address, Vladykawas threatened with internment. However, the metropolitan refused, sayingthat German policy and the purpose of the crusade was unclear to him. In

58 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 64-65; M.V. Shkarovsky, RPTsZ na Balkanakh v godyVtoroj Mirovoj Vojny [ROCOR in the Balkans in the years of the Second World War]; BishopGregory (Grabbe), Arkhierejskij Synod vo II Mirovuiu Vojnu [The Hierarchical Synod in WorldWar II].59 Poslanie k russkim pravoslavnym liudiam po povodu ‘Obraschenia patriarkha Aleksia karkipastyriam i kliru tak nazyvaemoj Karlovatskoj orientatsii’ (Epistle to the Russian Orthodoxpeople on the ‘Address of Patriarch Alexis to the archpastors and clergy of the so-calledKarlovtsy orientation), in G.M. Soldatov, Arkhierejskij Sobor Russkoj Pravoslavnoj TserkviZagranitsej, Miunkhen (Germania) 1946 g. (The Hierarchical Council of the Russian OrthodoxChurch Abroad at Munich in 1946), Minneapolis, 2003, p. 13 ®.

27

1945 his Holiness Patriarch Gabriel of Serbia witnessed to MetropolitanAnastasy’s loyalty to Serbia and the German’s distrust of him…

”Referring to documents of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and otherdepartments of the German government, the historian M.V. Shkarovskypointed out that Metropolitan Anastasy and the clergy of ROCOR were tryingto go to Russia to begin organizing missionary and charitable work there, butthis activity did not correspond to the plans of Germany, which wanted to seeRussia weak and divided in the future.”60

Nevertheless, of the two alternatives – the Germans or the Soviets –ROCOR considered the latter the more dangerous enemy. For Soviet powerhad been anathematized at the Russian Local Council in 1918, and hadsubjected the Russian Church to a persecution that was unprecedented in thehistory of Christianity.

Thus in November, 1944 Metropolitan Anastasy addressed the RussianLiberation Movement as follows: “In the name of the Father and of the Sonand of the Holy Spirit! From ancient times there has existed such a custom inthe Russian land; before undertaking any good work, especially a collectivework, they used to ask the blessing of God on it. And you have gathered here,dear brothers and fellow-countrymen, you workers and inspirer of theRussian national movement, thereby demonstrating the historical link of thegreat work of the liberation of Russia with the actions of our fathers andgreat-grandfathers… We are now all united by one feeling – a feeling ofdeadly irreconcilability with the Bolshevik evil and a flaming desire toextirpate it on the Russian land. For we know that as long as it reigns there,no rational human life is possible, no spiritual movement forward; as long asthis evil threatens both our fatherland and the whole of Europe, death anddestruction will be established everywhere. And insofar as you, dear brothersand sisters, are striving to crush this terrible evil… you are doing a trulypatriotic, even more than that, universal work, and the Church cannot fail tobless your great and holy beginning… Dear brothers and sisters, let us allunite around this Liberation Movement of ours, let each of us struggle on thispath and help the common great work of the liberation of our Homeland,until this terrible evil of Bolshevism falls and our tormented Russia is raisedfrom her bed…”61

The Stalin-Sergius Pact

Not only all patriotic and cultural forces, but also the Church was enrolledin defence of the Soviet “motherland”. Thus on the very first day of theinvasion, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) made an appeal to the nation

60 Soldatov, op. cit., pp. 12, 13.61 I.L. Solonevich, “Rossia v kontslagere” (Russia in the concentration camp), Volia naroda (TheWill of the People), November 22, 1944; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 78-79.

28

to support the Soviets. Then the Germans asked the MP’s exarch in the Baltic,Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), who had refused to be evacuatedeastwards with the Red Army, to react to it. His response was: “Soviet powerhas subjected the Orthodox Church to an unheard of persecution. Now thepunishment of God has fallen on this power… Above the signature ofMetropolitan Sergius of Moscow and Kolomna, the patriarchal locum tenens,the Bolsheviks have distributed an absurd appeal, calling on the Russianpeople to resist the German liberators. We now that the blessed Sergius, aman of great learning and zealous faith, could not himself compose such anilliterate and shameless appeal. Either he did not sign it at all, or he signed itunder terrible threats…”62

Sergius Shumilo writes: “The hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate on theterritories that remained under the Soviets officially declared a ‘holy war’ andunambiguously called on the people to fight on the side of the God-hatingregime of Stalin. Thus Metropolitan Sergius, who had usurped for himself thetitle ‘patriarchal locum tenens’, already on the first day of the war, June 22,1941, appealed to ‘the Soviet people’, not only calling on them to ‘the defenceof the Soviet Homeland’, but also declaring ‘a direct betrayal of pastoral duty’even the very thought that the clergy might have of ‘possible advantages to begained on the other side of the front’. With the cooperation of the NKVD thisappeal was sent to all the parishes in the country, where it was read afterservices as a matter of obligation.

“Not having succeeded in starting the war first, and fearing to lose thesupport of the people, Stalin’s regime in desperation decided to use a Germanpropaganda trick – the cultivation of national-patriotic and religious feelingsin the people. As E.I. Lisavtsev affirms, already in July, 1941 unofficialnegotiations took place for the first time between Stalin’s government andMetropolitan Sergius. In the course of a programme of anti-Hitleritepropaganda that was worked out in October, 1941, when the German armieshad come right up to Moscow, Metropolitan Sergius issued an Epistle inwhich he discussed the Orthodox hierarchs and clergy who had made contacton the occupied territories with the local German administration. De facto allthe hierarchs and clergy on the territories occupied by the Germans, includingthose who remained in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, cameunder Metropolitan Sergius’ excommunication.

“Having issued the Epistle, Metropolitan Sergius and all the members ofthe chancellery of the MP, together with the Soviet government and theleadership of the Soviet army and the NKVD, were evacuated from Moscowto Ulyanovsk (formerly Simbirsk), where on November 24 MetropolitanSergius delivered a new appeal to the people, in which he called them to ‘aholy war for Christian civilization, for freedom of conscience and faith’. In all

62 M.V. Shkarovsky, Pravoslavie i Rossia (Orthodoxy and Russia); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part3, p. 31.

29

during the years of the war S. Stragorodsky delivered more than 23 similaraddresses. Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich) also repeatedly called to a‘holy war’; his appeals to the partisans and the people in the form of leafletswere scattered in enormous quantities by Soviet military aviation onto theterritories occupied by the German armies. However, such epistles onlyprovoked the German command, and elicited reprisals against the local clergyand population. Besides this, Metropolitan Nicholas repeatedly appealed tothe ‘erring’ Romanian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches, to the Romanianand Bulgarian soldiers who were fighting on the side of Germany, and also tothe population and Church in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Greece and othercountries. Nicholas Yarushevich himself was appointed a member of the so-called ‘Pan-Orthodox Committee’ created according to a decision of thecommunist party, and also of the Extraordinary State Commission for theinvestigation of fascist crimes. And it is precisely on Metropolitan Nicholas, asa member of this commission, that there falls the blame for the lie anddisinformation concerning Stalin’s crimes: he was among those who signedthe unprecedentedly mendacious declaration to the effect that the shootingsof thousands of Polish officers in a wood near Katyn were carried out by theGermans, and not by Soviet punishment squads, as was the case in actual fact.Moreover these were not the only such cases.

“It was for the same propagandistic aims that in 1942, in the printing-houseof the Union of Militant Atheists, which had temporarily been handed overfor the use of the MP, there appeared in several foreign languages a solidlyproduced book, The Truth about Religion in Russia, the foreword to which wascomposed by S. Stragorodsky. As it said in the foreword: ‘… This book is areply first of all to the “crusade” of the fascists undertaken by themsupposedly for the sake of liberating our people and our Orthodox Churchfrom the Bolsheviks’. The whole of the book, from the first page to the last, isoverflowing with outpourings of unreserved devotion to Stalin’s regime andwith false assurances about ‘complete religious freedom in the USSR’.63

“The text of the telegram of Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow on November7, 1942 addressed to Stalin on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of theBolshevik coup sounds like an evil joke, a mockery of the memory ofhundreds of thousands of martyrs for the faith who perished during the yearsof the Stalinist repressions: ‘In your person I ardently and prayerfully greetthe God-chosen leader of our military and cultural forces, leading us tovictory over the barbarian invasion…’

63 Sergius wrote: “With complete objectivity we must declare that the Constitution, whichguarantees complete freedom for the carrying out of religious worship, in no way constrainsthe religious life of believers and the Church in general…” Concerning the trials of clergy andbelievers, he said: “These were purely political trials which had nothing to do with the purelyecclesiastical life of religious organizations and the purely ecclesiastical work of individualclergy. No, the Church cannot complain about the authorities.”

30

“However, besides propagandistic and ideological support for the Sovietregime, the clergy and parishioners of the MP also provided serious financialhelp to the army in the field. Thus in a telegram of Metropolitan Sergius to I.Stalin on February 25, 1943 we are formed: ‘On the day of the jubilee of ourvictorious Red Army I greet you as its Supreme Commander in the name ofthe clergy and believers of the Russian Orthodox Church, I prayerfully desirethat you experience the joy of complete victory over the enemy… Thebelievers in their desire to help the Red Army have willingly responded to myappeal: they have collected money to build a tank column in the nameDemetrius Donskoy. In all about 6,000,000 roubles have been collected, and,besides, a large quantity of gold and silver things…’”64

In fact, all parishes in Soviet Russia were required to make contributions tothe Soviet war effort. Sergius – the “compatriarch” or communist patriarch, asthe Germans called him - announced huge contributions towards theoutfitting of a tank unit. From November, 1941 even the last open church ofthe Josephites in Leningrad, that of the Holy Trinity in Lesny, began tocontribute. However, helping the Soviet war effort and remaining TrueOrthodox were clearly incompatible aims; and in November, 1943 the Trinityparish applied to join the Moscow Patriarchate…65

Shumilo continues: “Taking into consideration this loyal position of theleadership of the MP, and relying on the successful experiment of NaziGermany on the occupied territories, Stalin, after long hesitations, finallydecided on a more broadly-based use of religion in order to attain his ownpolitical ends. The more so in that this would help the new imposition ofcommunist tyranny on the ‘liberated’ territories and in the countries ofEastern Europe. ‘First of all,’ wrote the Exarch of the MP in the Baltic region,Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), in his report to the German occupyingauthorities already on November 12, 1941, ‘for the Soviet state the existence oflegal ecclesiastical administration was very important for purposes ofadvertisement and propaganda. In the foreign Jewish press, which wanted toattract the hearts of its liberal readers to “Stalin’s constitution”, it was possibleto point to the existence of the “Patriarchate” as an indisputable proof that inthe Soviet state even the Orthodox Church, that support of tsarist reaction,had complete religious freedom. On the other hand, if the patriarchaladministration and its members were annihilated, it would be difficult tobring the press abroad to silence. This would elicit a particularly powerfuland long-lasting response among the Orthodox Balkan peoples… Theexistence of the patriarchal administration was allowed, since its abolition,like any form of open persecution of the Church, would not correspond to the

64 Shumilo, “Sovietskij Rezhim i ‘Sovietskaia Tserkov’’ v 40-e-50-e gody XX stoletia” (TheSoviet Regime and the ‘Soviet Church’ in the 40s and 50s of the 20th Century),http://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=678 ®.65 “Iosiflianskie obschiny v blokadnom Leningrade” (Josephite Communities in BlockadedLeningrad), Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia), № 14 (1731), July 15/28, 2003, pp. 12-13 ®.

31

interests of the subtle atheist propaganda, and could elicit politicallyundesirable disturbances in the broad masses of the Orthodox believers (theirnumber is calculated at from 30 to 60 million) and arouse still greater hatredfor the authorities.

“’The forcible disbanding of the officially recognized leadership of thepatriarchate would inevitably call into existence a secret leadership, whichwould significantly increase the difficulties of police supervision… In generalthere has existed in Russia a very lively secret religious life (secret priests andmonks; secret places for prayer; secret Divine services; christenings;confessions; communions; marriages; secret theological studies; secretpossession of the Sacred Scriptures, liturgical vessels, icons, sacred books;secret relations between communities).

“’In order to destroy the catacomb patriarchate also, they would have toexecute all the bishops, including the secret ones that would undoubtedly beconsecrated in case of need. And if we imagine the impossible, that the wholeecclesiastical organization would be annihilated, then faith would still remain,and atheism would not make a single step forward. The Soviet governmentunderstood this, and preferred to allow the existence of a patriarchaladministration.’66

“But there were other more substantial reasons: already at the end ofSeptember, 1941 William Everell, the authorized representative of PresidentFranklin Roosevelt of the USA in Moscow, during negotiations with Molotovand Stalin with regard to drawing the USA onto the side of the USSR in thewar with Nazi Germany, raised the question of politics in relation to religionin the USSR. For Roosevelt this was one of the key questions, on whichdepended the final result of the negotiations and the possibility of givingmilitary help to the USSR. 67 In connection with this, on October 4, 1941 theSoviet deputy foreign minister Solomon Lozovsky assured the delegation ofthe USA that religion both in the USSR and outside it had a great significancefor raising the patriotic spirit in a country, and for that reason, if some faultsand mistakes had been admitted in the past, they would be corrected. So as toimitate so-called ‘freedom of conscience’ in the USSR and thereby win overthe countries of the West, Stalin began cautiously flirting with religion. But inthe beginning not with the Moscow Patriarchate, … but with the Vatican…

66 See also Fomin, op. cit., p. 125; Wassilij Alexeev and Keith Armes, "German Intelligence:Religious Revival in Soviet Territory", Religion in Communist Lands, vol. 5, № 1, Spring, 1977,pp. 27-30 (V.M.).67 See D. Volkogonov, Triumf i Tragedia (Triumph and Tragedy), Moscow: Novosti, 1989, bookII, part 1, pp. 382-83 ®; Shkvarovsky, Iosiflianstvo , op. cit., p. 185. Donald Rayfield writes:“Stalin may also have listened to an American envoy, who had pointed out that Congresswould not hesitate to send the USSR military aid if religious suppression stopped” (Stalin andhis Hangmen, London: Viking, 2004, p. 405). (V.M.)

32

“Cardinal changes in the internal politics of Stalin in relation to theMoscow Patriarchate… took place in the second half of 1943. At the beginningof autumn the leaders of the allied countries in the anti-Hitlerite coalitionwere preparing for their first personal meeting in Teheran. Stalin placed greathopes on the Teheran meeting, and so he sought out various means of urgingon the allies. First of all, public movements in England and the USA for givinghelp to the USSR were given the most active support. Among theseorganizations with whose leaders Stalin carried out a personalcorrespondence, was Hewitt Johnson, the rector of the cathedral church ofCanterbury. The Soviet historian V. Alexeev thinks that ‘this was a partnerwhom Stalin treasured, and who had no small influence in an allied country,where the Anglichan church was the state religion.’

“Besides Hewitt Johnson, other hierarchs of the Anglican church wereactively involved into the movement for the speediest provision of help to theUSSR, including Archbishop Cosmo Lang. More than a thousand activists ofthe Episcopalian church of the U.S.A. addressed similar appeals to thepresident of the USA Franklin Roosevelt. Moreover, by the autumn of 1943the leadership of the Anglican church had addressed the Soviet governmentthrough the embassy of the USSR in Great Britain with a request to allow avisit of their delegation to Moscow. As V. Alexeev remarks: ‘On the eve of theTeheran conference the visit of the delegation was recognized as desirableand useful by Stalin. In this situation it was extremely advantageous that thehead of the delegation, the Archbishop of York, should be received by thehigher leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church headed by the patriarch.’

“In connection with the above-mentioned political perspectives,Metropolitan Sergius (from Ulyanovsk) and Metropolitan Alexis (fromLeningrad) were very quickly transported to Moscow on government planes.Together with Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich), they were brought late atnight on September 4, 1943 to Stalin in the Kremlin. Besides Stalin, the deputypresident of the Sovnarkom of the USSR. V. Molotov and NKVD General-Major G. Karpov took part in the talks. As Alexeev witnesses, relying on G.Karpov’s report, at the meeting ‘Stalin approved of the convening of acouncil, but advised that a Hierarchical, not a Local council be convened atthe given time… The metropolitans agreed. When Sergius touched upon thequestion of the time necessary for the preparation of the council, Stalin askedhim: “Can we not produce a Bolshevik tempo?” Then, turning to Karpov, heasked him to help the leadership of the church to get the bishops to thecouncil as quickly as possible. For this he was to bring in aviation and otherforms of transport. Karpov assured Stalin that all the necessary work wouldbe carried out and the council could be opened already in three to four days.Immediately Stalin and Metropolitans Sergius, Alexis and Nicholas agreed toset September 8 as the opening of the council.’

33

“Here we must note that Karpov’s report 68 sins through obviousexaggerations, which create the deceptive impression that the initiative inthese ‘negotiations’ came from the hierarchs, while Stalin spoke only in therole of a ‘kind magician’ who carried out all their demands. In actual fact thesubject of the so-called ‘negotiations’, and the decisions taken during them,had been worked out long before the meeting. Stalin, Malenkov and Beria hadexamined this question in their dacha already before the middle of the day onSeptember 4. Confirmation of this is given by the speedy transport of Sergiusand Alexis to Moscow, and also the spineless agreement of the metropolitanswith Stalin’s proposals – ‘the metropolitans agreed’, as it says in Karpov’sreport. But the delegation of metropolitans, being loyal to the authorities,could not act differently in their meeting with the dictator, in connection withwhich Karpov spiced up his report with invented initiatives of Sergius.

“Reviewing the question of the convening of the council, it was decidedthat Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) should, for political reasons, beproclaimed ‘patriarch of all Rus’’ and not ‘of Russia [Rossii]’, as it was underPatriarch Tikhon (Bellavin).69 Turning to the metropolitans, Stalin said thatthe government was ready to provide her with the necessary financial meansto support the international image of the Moscow Patriarchate, and alsoinformed them that for the accommodation of the chancellery of the MP hewas giving over to them a three-storey house with all its furniture – the pastresidence of the German ambassador Schulenberg. Obviously, Stalinpresented this gift to annoy the Germans, who had opened Orthodoxchurches on the occupied territories.

“At the end of the meeting Stalin declared that he was intending to create aspecial organ for control of the Church – the Council for the Affairs of theRussian Orthodox Church (SD RPTs). ‘… In reply the metropolitans thankedthe government and Stalin personally for the reception he had given them, hisenormous help to, and respect for, the Church, and assured the president ofthe Sovnarkom of their patriotic position, noting that they looked veryfavourably on the creation of a new state organ for the affairs of the OrthodoxChurch and on the appointment of [NKVD Major-General] G. Karpov to thepost of its president… Turning to Metropolitan Sergius, Molotov asked himwhen it would be better, in his opinion, to receive the delegation of the

68 According to Karpov’s report, Metropolitan Sergius brought up the question of electing apatriarch right at the beginning of the meeting as being “the most important and mostpressing question” (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 53). This report was published in full inRussian in Monk Benjamin, op. cit., pp. 53-60, and in English in Felix Corbey (ed.), Religion inthe Soviet Union: an archival reader, New York: New York University Press, 1996. (V.M.)69 This was an important symbolic change. The pre-revolutionary Russian Church wasrossijskaia, that is, the Church of the whole of the Russian empire and of all the Orthodox init, whether they were Russian by race or not. By changing the title to russkaia, Stalinemphasised that it was the Church exclusively of the ethnically Russian people – that is, ofthe russkikh. Over half a century later, ROAC – the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church –resumed the title rossijskaia. (V.M.)

34

Anglican church in Moscow… Sergius replied that since the council at whichthey would elect the patriarch would be held in four days, the delegationcould be received practically at any time after that. On hearing this, Molotovconcluded that it would be appropriate to receive it in a month’s time [that is,on the eve of the Teheran conference]. Stalin agreed.”70

The three hierarchs also raised the question of opening more churches.Stalin replied that there were no obstacles to this from the side of thegovernment. Then Metropolitan Alexis raised the question of releasing certainhierarchs who were in the camps. Stalin said: “Give me a list, and we shalllook at it.”71

The meeting lasted until 3 a.m. According to Archimandrite Ioann(Razumov), Sergius was enchanted by Stalin. “How kind he is!… How kindhe is!” he said in a hushed voice.72

To summarise the results of this critical meeting, the Soviet churchacquired a precarious, semi-legal existence – the right to open a bank account,to publish The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate and a few booklets, to reopensome seminaries and churches, and, most important, to “elect” a newpatriarch after the release from prison of some of the most malleable bishops.In return, it had to accept censorship and control of every aspect of its affairsby the newly constituted Council for Russian Orthodox Affairs, which cameto be nicknamed "Narkombog" (People's Commissar for God) and"Narkomopium" (People's Commissar for Opium).

70 Shumilo, op. cit.71 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 56. According to Anatolius Levitin-Krasnov, Molotov atone point “said that the Soviet government and Stalin personally would like to know theneeds of the Church. While the other metropolitans remained silent, Metropolitan Sergiussuddenly spoke up… The metropolitan pointed out the need for the mass re-opening ofchurches… for the convocation of a church council and the election of a patriarch… for thegeneral opening of seminaries, because there was a complete lack of clergy. Here Stalinsuddenly broke his silence. ‘And why don’t you have cadres? Where have they disappeared?’he said… looking at the bishops point blank… Everybody knew that ‘the cadres’ hadperished in the camps. But Metropolitan Sergius… replied: ‘There are all sorts of reasons whywe have no cadres. One of the reasons is that we train a person for the priesthood, and hebecomes the Marshal of the Soviet Union.’ A satisfied smile touched the lips of the dictator:‘Yes, of course. I am a seminarian…’ Stalin began to reminisce about his years at theseminary… He said that his mother had been sorry to her very death that he had not becomea priest…” (Levitin-Krasnov, Likhie Gody, 1925-1941 (The Savage Years, 1925-1941), Paris:YMCA Press, 1977 ®). Rayfield notes that the metropolitans went to the meeting “all wearingordinary suits” (op. cit., p. 405). The story (perhaps fictional) goes that on seeing this, Stalinlooked up to heaven and said: “Do you not fear Him? You fear me more…”72 Razumov, in Sergius Fomin, Strazh Doma Gospodnia. Patriarkh Moskovskij i vseia Rusi SergijStragorodskij, (Guardian over the House of the Lord: Patriarch Sergius Stragorodsky ofMoscow and All Rus’): Moscow Sretenskij monastery, 2003, p. 702 ®. It was at about this timethat Stalin is said to have “told the British ambassador that, in his own way, ‘he too believedin God’. The word began to appear in Pravda with a capital letter.” (Overy, op. cit., p. 162)

35

Stalin’s new ecclesiastical policy was effective. Donald Rayfield writes:“Promoting Orthodoxy had been more effective in galvanizing the nationthan reiterating the slogans of Stalinism. Stalin may also have listened to anAmerican envoy, who had pointed out that Congress would not hesitate tosend the USSR military aid if religious suppression stopped. Right untilStalin’s death Russian metropolitan bishops were delivered in large blacklimousines to appear on international platforms, such as peace congresses, inthe company of such stalwart atheists as Fadeev and Ehrenburg.”73 But fromthe Church’s point of view, the new policy, while it ensured the Church’sphysical survival, made it completely a slave of the State. As Rayfield writes:“The Church was now… an arm of the state.”74

At first, the Council for Religious Affairs exerted its control downwards viathe bishops in accordance with the Church’s rigidly centralized structure.From 1961, however, its control came to be exercised also from below,through the so-called dvadsatky, or parish councils of twenty laypeople, whocould hire and fire priests at will, regardless of the bishops. Thus for all itsincreased size and external power, the MP remained as much a puppet ofSoviet power as ever. As Vasilyeva and Knyshevsky write: “There is no doubtthat Stalin’s ‘special organ’ and the government (to be more precise, theStalin-Molotov duet) kept the patriarch under ‘eternal check’. Sergiusunderstood this. And how could he not understand when, on November 1,1943, the Council made it obligatory for all parishes to submit a monthlyaccount with a detailed description of their activity in all its facets?”75

Shumilo continues: “The so-called ‘hierarchical council’… took place onSeptember 8, 1943. In all 19 hierarchs took part in it, six of whom were formerrenovationists who had been hastily consecrated not long before the ‘council’,and also several loyal bishops who were specially freed from prison and sentto Moscow in planes. At the given assembly there were no bishops from theoccupied territories, nor from the emigration, or, still more, those who did notagree with Sergius and his ecclesiastical politics, who continued to languish inSoviet concentration camps. As the patriarchal historian D. Pospelovskynotes: ‘… At that time there were at least some tens of bishops in exile and thecamps… Some of the imprisoned bishops refused to recognize theecclesiastical politics of Sergius after 1927 as the condition of their liberation.At that time the Catacomb Church was still very active.’”76

At the 1943 council, contrary to the rules laid down by the 1917-18 Council,only one candidate for the patriarchy was put forward. “I think that this willbe made infinitely easier for us by the fact that we already have someone

73 Rayfield, op. cit., p. 405.74 Rayfield, op. cit., p. 405.75 Vasilieva, O., Kniashevsky, P. "Tainaia Vecheria" (The Last Supper), Liternaturnaia Rossia(Literary Russia), № 39, September 27, 1991 ®.76 Shumilo, op. cit.

36

bearing the patriarchal privileges, and so I suppose that an election with allthe details that usually accompany such events is not necessary for us,”declared Metropolitan Alexis (Simansky), who put forward the candidacy ofSergius. There was nothing for the delegates to do but submit to the will of“the father of the peoples, Joseph Stalin”, and to the question of MetropolitanSergius: “Is nobody of another opinion?”, reply: “No, agreed”.77

“At the end of the session the council accepted a resolution read out bySergius that was unprecedented in its amorality and uncanonicity. It said that‘every person who is guilty of betraying the common work of the Church andof passing over to the side of fascism is to be counted as excommunicated asbeing an enemy of the Cross of the Lord, and if he is a bishop or cleric isdeprived of his rank.’ Thus practically the whole of the population and clergyof the occupied territories – except, of course, the red partisans – fell underthe anathema of the Soviet church, including 7.5 million Soviet prisoners ofwar, who had become prisoners of the Germans. According to Stalin’s ukaz№ 260 of September, 1941, all of them were declared traitors to theirHomeland. ‘There are no captives, there are only deserters,’ declaredMolotov, commenting on this ukaz.”78

Sergius was enthroned as “patriarch” on September 12, 1943. OnSeptember 14 the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church,later renamed the Council for Religious Affairs, was created with Karpov atits head. Eduard Radzinsky comments: “Karpov was also [since 1940] head ofthe Fifth Department of the NKVD79, whose assignment was to combat ‘thecounterrevolutionary clergy.’ In the NKVD Karpov’s duty was to fight thechurch, in the council [-] to assist it…”80

Orthodoxy and Paganism in Manchuria

From 1931 Manchuria with its capital city of Harbin was occupied by theJapanese, which placed an important part of the Russian emigration in whatwas in effect a militantly pagan country.

In the autumn of 1940 the Japanese passed a new law forbidding foreignersto lead religious organizations. Metropolitan Sergius (Tikhomirov) was forcedto retire. However, in March, 1941 Protopriest Ioann (Ono) was consecratedby ROCOR bishops in Japan as Bishop Nicholas, the first Japanese Orthodoxbishop. On his return, some parishioners rejected him. However, with thehelp of the retired Metropolitan Sergius, the believers were pacified.81

77 Shumilo, op. cit.78 Shumilo, op. cit.79 According to Monk Benjamin (op. cit., p. 60): head of the third department of the FifthAdministration.80 Radzinsky, Stalin, p. 508.81 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 13-14, 19.

37

In May, 1943, the Japanese placed a statue of their goddess Amateras, whoaccording to Japanese tradition was the foundress of the imperial race,directly opposite the Orthodox cathedral of St. Nicholas, and demanded thatRussians going to church in the cathedral should first make a “reverentialbow” towards the goddess. They also required that on certain days Japanesetemples should be venerated, while a statue of the goddess was to be put inOrthodox churches.

The question of the admissibility of participating in such ritual venerationswas discussed at the diocesan assemblies of the Harbin diocese on September8 and October 2, 1943, in the presence of the hierarchs of the Harbin diocese:Metropolitan Meletius, Bishop Demetrius and Bishop Juvenal (ArchbishopNestor was not present). According to the witness of the secretary of theEpiscopal conference, Fr. Leonid Upshinsky, “the session was stormy, sincesome objected that… Amateras was not a goddess but the Ancestress.” It wasdecided “to accept completely and direct to the authorities” the reports ofBishop Demetrius of Hailar and Professor K.I. Zaitsev (the futureArchimandrite Constantine), which expressed the official view of theepiscopate that participation in the ritual venerations was inadmissible.82

However, on February 5, 1944 the congress of leaders of the Russianemigration in Manchuria met in Harbin. The congress opened with a molebenin the St. Nicholas cathedral, after which the participants went to the Japanesetemple “Harbin-Jinjya”, where they carried out a veneration of the goddessAmateras. On February 12 the Harbin hierarchs responded with aarchpastoral epistle, in which they said: “Since any kind of veneration ofpagan divinities and temples is forbidden by the commandments of God…,Orthodox Christians, in obedience to the will of God and his Law, cannot andmust not carry out this veneration, for such venerations contradict the basictheses of the Orthodox Faith.” Archbishop Nestor refused to sign this epistle.In March both vicars of the Harbin diocese, Bishop Demetrius and BishopJuvenal, were summoned to the police, where they were closely interrogatedabout the circumstances of the illegal distribution of the archpastoral epistleand about the attitude of the flock to this question. On April 28 MetropolitanMeletius was subjected to interrogation. The conversation, which lasted forseveral hours, produced no result. Referring to his extreme exhaustion andillness, Vladyka Meletius asked that the conversation be continued on May 1.This again produced no result. Bishop Demetrius, who also took part,categorically and sharply protested against the venerations.

On May 2, an Episcopal Convention took place (Archbishop Nestor, asusual, was not present), at which this position was confirmed. Several dayslater, Metropolitan Meletius presented the text of the Episcopal Convention toMr. Kobayasi. Kobayasi demanded that he give a written promise not to raise

82 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 49.

38

the question of venerations until the end of the war. Metropolitan Meletiusasked that the words “if there will be no compulsion to venerations” shouldbe added to the text. Vladyka’s demand again elicited a quarrel. However, inthe end Kobayasi gave in.

On August 31 the Harbin archpastors sent a letter to Archbishop Nestor inwhich they appealed to him “to unite with us, return and may your voicesound out in defence of the purity of the Faith and zeal for its confession. Sign(better late than never) our Archpastoral Epistle and announce this publicly –in whatever way and place you can.” In reply, Vladyka Nestor wrote that hedid not disagree with his brother archpastors about the inadmissibility ofvenerating the temples of Amateras.83

An important influence on the Japanese in their eventual climb-down wasthe courageous confession of Archimandrite Philaret (Voznesensky), thefuture first-hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad and the son of BishopDemetrius. The Japanese seized him and subjected him to torture. His cheekwas torn and his eyes were almost torn out, but he suffered this patiently.Then they told him: “We have a red-hot electrical instrument here. Everybodywho has had it applied to them has agreed to our requests. And you will alsoagree.” The torturer brought the instrument forward. Then Fr. Philaret prayedto St. Nicholas: “Holy Hierarch Nicholas, help me, otherwise there may be abetrayal.” The torturer commenced his work. He stripped the confessor to hiswaist and started to burn his spine with the burning iron. Then a miracle tookplace. Fr. Philaret could smell his burning flesh, but felt no pain. He felt joyfulin his soul. The torturer could not understand why he was silent, and did notcry out or writhe from the unbearable pain. Then he turned and looked at hisface. Amazed, he waved his hand, muttered something in Japanese and fled,conquered by the superhuman power of the confessor’s endurance. Fr.Philaret was brought, almost dead, to his relatives. There he passed out.When he came to he said: “I was in hell itself.” Gradually his wounds healed.Only his eyes were a bit distorted. And the Japanese no longer tried to compelthe Orthodox to bow down to their idol.84

The Consequences of the Pact

“A week after the enthronement,” writes Shumilo, “on the orders of theSovnarkom, Sergius accepted the long-awaited delegation of the Anglicanchurch led by Archbishop Cyril Garbett in Moscow… In general, in the run-up to the Teheran conference the politics of the Soviet regime was‘reconstructed’ not only in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate but also inrelation to the Vatican. In October, 1943 support had been given to the official

83 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 67-69.84 Protopriest Alexis Mikrikov, “Unia s MP privedet k dukhovnoj karastrofe” (The Unia withthe MP will lead to a spiritual catastrophe),http://metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo34.html (R).

39

Georgian Orthodox and Armenian-Gregorian churches. The regimecooperated with the Muslims in convening in Tashkent a conference of loyalMuslim clergy and believers, in the organization in Bujnaks of a legal spiritualadministration of the Muslims of the North Caucasus, in the opening ofMuslim theological schools (medrese) in Bukhara, Tashkent, etc. However, itis quite mistaken to think that this ‘warming’ was a fully-fledged offering offreedom to the religious organizations in the USSR. In spite of their externalfreedom, the religious workers of the country, all without exception,remained hostages of the totalitarian system and remained under the constantstrict supervision of the Soviet special services. But in relation to the so-called‘unreliables’, the communist repressive apparatus continued to operate asbefore, although the religious workers themselves in all their officialdeclarations categorically denied this, insinuating into popular opinionabroad the false idea that complete freedom of conscience and religiousorganizations had been re-established in the USSR. As V. Alexeev remarks:‘… The deeply religious F.D. Roosevelt was very satisfied with the newrelationship of the authorities to the church in the USSR. These stepsundertaken by Stalin also received approval in England, Canada and France,where the position of religious organizations in society was very strong. TheRussian emigration was also satisfied with them.’”85

Shortly after being elected Patriarch, in an encyclical dated October 14,1943, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) threatened all the clergy who werecooperating with the Germans with an ecclesiastical trial. The Germanscountered by confronting Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky) with the actsof the Vienna conference of ROCOR, which condemned Sergius’ election asuncanonical, and demanded that he approve of them. On April 28 or 29, 1944,Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky) was ambushed and shot. There are goodreasons for believing that the act was done by Soviets dressed in Germanuniforms and that the leader of the murderers was Dr. Aschach, local head ofGerman counter-intelligence.86

On October 27, 1943 Metropolitan Sergius wrote to Karpov: “I ask you topetition the government of the USSR for an amnesty for the people named inthe attached list, whom I would like to draw into Church work under myadministration. I will not take upon myself to decide the question to whatextent these people deserved the punishment they underwent. But I amconvinced that clemency given them by the Goverenment would arouse them(and give them the opportunity) to apply all their energy to demonstrate theirloyalty to the Government of the USSR and to wipe out their guiltcompletely.” To this declaration was attached a list of 26 clergy, including 24

85 Shumilo, op. cit. Of course, not all of the Russian emigration – only that (large) part thatbelieved in the good intentions of the Soviet government.86 Vasilieva, op. cit.; Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco (OCA), “Truth/Consequences”,[email protected], archives for September 21, 1999.

40

hierarchs. Most of them, as it turned out, had already been shot or hadperished in the camps.87

On October 31, after the Georgians congratulated Sergius on his election,Sergius’ representative, Archbishop Anthony of Stavropol and Pyatigorsk,concelebrated with Catholicos Callistratus of Georgia in Tbilisi. So eucharisticcommunion was re-established without preconditions. Until 1990 theEcumenical Patriarchate did not accept this act since it was carried outwithout his agreement, but only with his knowledge.88

In the period from the Stalin-Sergius pact of September, 1943 to theenthronement of the new “patriarch” Alexis in January, 1945, the 19 bishopsof the MP (they had been only four at the beginning of the war) were morethan doubled to 41.

Catacomb Bishop “A.” (probably the great confessor Anthony Galynsky-Mikhailovsky) wrote: “Very little time passed between September, 1943 andJanuary, 1945. Therefore it is difficult to understand where 41 bishops camefrom instead of 19. In this respect our curiosity is satisfied by the Journal of theMoscow Patriarchate for 1944. Looking through it, we see that the 19 bishopswho existed in 1943, in 1944 rapidly gave birth to the rest, who became themembers of the 1945 council.

“From the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate we learn that these hastyconsecrations were carried out, in the overwhelming majority of cases, onrenovationist protopriests.

“From September, 1943 to January, 1945, with a wave of a magic wand, allthe renovationists suddenly repented before Metropolitan Sergius. Thepenitence was simplified, without the imposition of any demands on thosewho caused so much evil to the Holy Church. And in the shortest time the‘penitent renovationists’ received a lofty dignity, places and ranks, in spite ofthe church canons and the decree about the reception of renovationistsimposed [by Patriarch Tikhon] in 1925…

“As the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate informs us, the ‘episcopal’consecrations before the ‘council’ of 1945 took place thus: the protopriest whohad been recommended (undoubtedly by the civil authorities), and who wasalmost always from the ‘reunited’ renovationists or gregorians, wasimmediately tonsured into monasticism with a change in name and then, twoor three days later, made a ‘hierarch of the Russian Church’.”89

87 GARF, f. 6991, op. 1, d. 5, l. 1; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 66.88 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 61-63.89 "Pis'mo 2-oe Katakombnogo Episkopa A. k F.M." (The Second Letter of Catacomb Bishop A.to F.M.), Russkij Pastyr' (Russian Pastor), № 14, III-1992; Russkoe Pravoslavie (RussianOrthodoxy), 1996, № 2 (2), pp. 10, 11 ®.

41

This acceptance of the renovationists was dictated in the first place by thewill of the Bolsheviks, who now saw the Sergianists as more useful to themthan the renovationists. Thus on October 12, 1943 Karpov wrote to Stalin andMolotov: “The renovationist movement earlier played a constructive role butin recent years has lost its significance and base of support. On this basis, andtaking into account the patriotic stance of the Sergiite church, the Council forRussian Orthodox Church Affairs has decided not to prevent the dissolutionof the renovationist church and the transfer of the renovationist clergy andparishes to the patriarchal, Sergiite church.”90

On October 16 Karpov sent secret instructions to the regions not to hinderthe transfer of renovationists to the Sergianist church.91

Since Karpov wanted the renovationists to join the state church, the rulesfor their reception were relaxed. Thus in 1944 Metropolitan Alexis (Simansky)severely upbraided Bishop Manuel (Lemeshevsky) for forcing “venerable”renovationist protopriests to “turn somersaults”, i.e. repent, before the people,in accordance with Patriarch Tikhon’s rules.92

As Roslof writes: “The relaxation of rules by the patriarchate reflected theneeds of both church and state. The patriarchal synod had full backing fromthe government and expected to emerge as the sole central authority for theOrthodox Church. So it could afford to show mercy. At the same time, thepatriarchate faced a scarcity of clergy to staff reopened parishes and to runthe dioceses. Sergii’s bishops had problems finding priests for churches thathad never closed. This shortage of clergy was compounded by the age andpoor education of the candidates who were available. The patriarchate sawproperly supervised red priests as part of the solution to the problem of fillingvacant posts.”93

However, the penetration of the patriarchate by these “red priests” meantthat the new, post-war generation of clergy was quite different from the pre-war generation in that they had already proved their heretical, renovationistcast of mind, and now returned to the neo-renovationist MP like a dog to hisvomit (II Peter 2.22), forming a heretical core that controlled the patriarchatewhile being in complete obedience to the atheists. The way in which therenovationist-sergianist hierarchs sharply turned course at a nod from thehigher-ups was illustrated, in the coming years, by the MP’s sharp change in

90 Karpov, in Edward E. Roslof, Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolution,1905-1946, Indiana University Press, 2002, pp. 194-195.91 Roslof, op. cit., p. 195.92 See Metropolitan John (Snychev) of St. Petersburg, Mitropolit Manuil (Lemeshevsky)(Metropolitan Manuel Lemeshevsky)), St. Petersburg, 1993, p. 185 ®. Of course, a guiltyconscience may also have had something to do with it: both “Patriarch” Sergius and hissuccessor, “Patriarch” Alexis, were themselves “repentant renovationists”.93 Roslof, op. cit., p. 196.

42

attitude towards ecumenism, from strictly anti-ecumenist in 1948 to pro-ecumenist only ten years later.

Sergius did more than place the MP in unconditional submission to theGod-hating authorities. As Archimandrite Nectarius (Yashunsky) writes, heintroduced a heretical understanding of the Church and salvation:“Metropolitan Sergius’ understanding of the Church (and therefore, ofsalvation) was heretical. He sincerely, it seems to us, believed that the Churchwas first of all an organization, an apparatus which could not functionwithout administrative unity. Hence the striving to preserve heradministrative unity at all costs, even at the cost of harming the truthcontained in her.

“And this can be seen not only in the church politics he conducted, but alsoin the theology [he evolved] corresponding to it. In this context two of hisworks are especially indicative: ‘Is There a Vicar of Christ in the Church?’ (TheSpiritual Heritage of Patriarch Sergius, Moscow, 1948) and ‘The Relationship ofthe Church to the Communities that have Separated from Her’ (Journal of theMoscow Patriarchate).

In the first, although Metropolitan Sergius gives a negative answer to thequestion (first of all in relation to the Pope), this negative answer is not somuch a matter of principle as of empiricism. The Pope is not the head of theUniversal Church only because he is a heretic. But in principle MetropolitanSergius considers it possible and even desirable for the whole of the UniversalChurch to be headed by one person. Moreover, in difficult times in the life ofthe Church this person can assume such privileges even if he does not havethe corresponding canonical rights. And although the metropolitan declaresthat this universal leader is not the vicar of Christ, this declaration does notlook sincere in the context both of his other theological opinions and of hisactions in accordance with this theology.”

In the second cited article, Metropolitan Sergius explained the differencesin the reception of heretics and schismatics, not on the basis of their objectiveconfession of faith, but on the subjective (and therefore changeable)relationship of the Church’s first-hierarch to them. Thus “we receive theLatins into the Church through repentance, but those from the Karlovtsyschism through chrismation”.

And so for Sergius, concludes Fr. Nectarius, “the truth of Holy Orthodoxyis not necessary for salvation, but it is belonging to a legal church-administrative organization that is necessary”!94

94 Hierodeacon Jonah (now Archimandrite Nectarius) (Yashunsky), "Sergianstvo: Politika iliDogmatika?" (Sergianism: Politics or Dogmatics?), 29 April / May 12, 1993, pp. 2-3, 5 (MS) ®.Since, for Sergius, salvation was not the Truth of Holy Orthodoxy, it is not surprising to findthe seeds of ecumenism in him. Thus in his article, “The Relationship of an Orthodox Person

43

This heretical transformation of the Moscow Patriarchate into an “easternpapacy” was described by Fr. Vyacheslav Polosin: “If Metropolitan Sergiuswas ruled, not by personal avarice, but by a mistaken understanding of whatwas for the benefit of the Church, then it was evident that the theologicalfoundation of such an understanding was mistaken, and even constituted aheresy concerning the Church herself and her activity in the world. We maysuppose that these ideas were very close to the idea of the Filioque: since theSpirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son, that meansthat the vicar of the Son… can dispose of the Spirit, so that the Spirit actsthrough Him ex opere operato.. It follows necessarily that he who performsthe sacraments of the Church, ‘the minister of the sacrament’, mustautomatically be ‘infallible’, for it is the infallible Spirit of God Who worksthrough him and is inseparable from him… However, this Latin schema ofthe Church is significantly inferior to the schema and structure created byMetropolitan Sergius. In his schema there is no Council, or it is replaced by aformal assembly for the confirmation of decisions that have already beentaken – on the model of the congresses of the Communist Party of the SovietUnion.

“The place of the Council in his Church structure is taken by somethinglacking in the Latins’ scheme – Soviet power, loyalty to which becomes in thenature of a dogma… This scheme became possible because it was prepared byRussian history. But if the Orthodox tsar and the Orthodox procurator tosome extent constituted a ‘small Council’, which in its general direction didnot contradict… the mind-set of the majority of believers, with the change inworld-view of those came to the helm of Soviet power this scheme acquired aheretical character, since the decisions of the central ecclesiastical authorities,which were associated in the minds of the people with the will of the Spirit ofGod, came to be determined neither by a large nor by a small Council, but bythe will of those who wanted to annihilate the very idea of God (the officialaim of the second ‘godless’ five-year-plan was to make the people forget eventhe word ‘God’). Thus at the source of the Truth, instead of the revelation ofthe will of the Holy Spirit, a deadly poison was substituted… The MoscowPatriarchate, in entrusting itself to the evil, God-fighting will of the Bolsheviksinstead of the conciliar will of the Spirit, showed itself to be an image of theterrible deception of unbelief in the omnipotence and Divinity of Christ, Whoalone can save and preserve the Church and Who gave the unlying promisethat ‘the gates of hell will not overcome her’… The substitution of this faith byvain hope in one’s own human powers as being able to save the Church in

to his Church and to the Heterodox” (Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (The Journal of theMoscow Patriarchate), 1993, № 3) he wrote: “Outside the Church one does not find animmediate darkness between the Church and the heretical communities. Rather, there isfound a partial shadow, which in its own way falls upon the schismatics and the self-willed(heretics). These two groups cannot be in the strict sense considered strangers to the Churchnor completely torn away from Her.”

44

that the Spirit works through them, is not in accord with the canons andTradition of the Church, but ex opere operato proceeds from the ‘infallible’top of the hierarchical structure.”95

The False Moscow Council of 1945

Sergius died on May 15, 1944. “They say that not long before his deathSergius had a vision of Christ, after which he sobbed for a long time over thecrimes he had committed.”96 After Sergius’ death, “with the approval of theCouncil for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church the ‘right hand’ ofSergius, the former renovationist Metropolitan Alexis (Simansky) ofLeningrad entered into the rights of the patriarchal locum tenens.Metropolitan Alexis’ first act as locum tenens was to send a telegram on May19, 1944 to Stalin, in which he thanked him for the trust he had showed him,promised to continue the politics of Stalin without wavering and assured himof his love and devotion to the cause of the party and Stalin….

“It was expected that Stalin would reply to such protestations of loyalty byallowing the convening of a council and the election of a new patriarch.However, Stalin, in spite of the fact that, eight months before, on the eve ofthe Teheran conference, he had hastily convened a council, now seemed notto be aiming for it. But such suspicions were mistaken. The talented scenaristwas acting, according to the expression of V. Alexeyev, ‘in accordance with apreviously worked out plan’, and was by no means planning to stop using theChurch for his criminal aims. As became clear later, he resorted to conveningthe council at the beginning of 1945, that is, in time for the official meeting ofthe heads of the governments of the USSR, USA and Great Britain fromFebruary 4 to 12 in Yalta, which had for Stalin a strategically importantsignificance. With this aim, already at the end of November, 1944 a congressof bishops had been carried out in Moscow at which they were given specialinstructions and commands on the order in which the council was to becarried out and the role of each of them in it. It was here that the projectedconciliar documents were drawn up, and the order for the election of the newSoviet patriarch was drawn up. The former Catacomb Archbishop Luke(Vojno-Yasensky), who had been freed from a camp during the war andunited to the MP, reminded the gathered bishops of the resolution of theLocal Council of 1917-1918 to the effect that the patriarch had to be elected bysecret ballot from several candidates. But none of the sergianist bishopsdecided to support this resolution and the single candidate, as had beenplanned, remained Metropolitan Alexis (Simansky). Since Archbishop Lukedid not agree with this violation of the conciliar norms, was through the

95 Polosin (Sergius Ventsel), "Razmyshlenia o Teokratii v Rossii" (Thoughts on Theocracy inRussia), Vestnik Khristianskogo Informatsionnogo Tsentra (Herald of the Christian InformationCentre), № 48, November 24, 1989 ®.96 Shumilo, op. cit.

45

efforts of Protopriest Nicholas Kolchitsky and Metropolitan Alexis notadmitted to the council and took no part in it.”97

Some have seen in the behaviour of Archbishop Luke proof that the MPwas not completely sovietized at this time, and that its hierarchy stillcontained some true bishops. Unfortunately, however, there is clear evidencethat Archbishop Luke, like the other hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate,was infected by the Soviet bacillus to such an extent that he deviated fromOrthodox teaching. Thus he wrote that Christ’s commandment to love one’sneighbour did not apply “to the German murderers… it is absolutelyimpossible to love them.” And again: “How shall we now preach the Gospelof love and brotherhood to those who do not know Christ, but who have seenthe satanic face of the German who claims to be a Christian?” 98 Suchsentiments from one who knew from his own experience how “Christian” hisown government was, were possible only for one who allowed revolutionarymorality to obscure the light of Christian truth. Indeed, Archbishop Luke(who has recently been canonized by the MP) is known to have said that if hehad not been a priest he would have been a communist.99

In January, 1945, another council assembled in Moscow, consisting of fourRussian metropolitans, 41 bishops and 141 representatives of the clergy andlaity. Also present were the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Georgia,and representatives of the Constantinopolitan, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbianand other Churches. In all there were 204 participants.

”A significant amount of money,” writes Shumilo, “was set apart by Stalinfor its preparation. The best hotels of the capital, the “Metropole” and“National” were placed at the disposal of the participants of the councilgratis, as well as Kremlin government food reserves, government “ZIS”automobiles, a large government house with all modern conveniences andmuch else. Stalin was also concerned about the arrival in the USSR ofrepresentatives of foreign churches, so as to give an international significanceto the given action. As V. Alexeev notes: ‘… … By having a local council Stalin

97 Shumilo, op. cit. ; Fr. Sergius Gordun, "Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' pri SvyateishikhPatriarkhakh Sergii i Aleksii" (The Russian Orthodox Church under their HolinessesPatriarchs Sergius and Alexis), Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizhenia (Herald of the RussianChristian Movement), vol. 158, I-1990, p. 92 ®.98 Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), № 2, 1944, pp. 26-28; № 4, 1943, p. 25 ®; cited in Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, op. cit. , vol. 1,pp. 208-209. In 1941 Metropolitan Sergius said something similar: “The heart of the Christianis closed for the fascist beasts; it oozes out only an annihilating deadly hatred for theenemy…” (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 34).99 Protopriest Valerius Lapkovsky, “Kto Vozdvigal Pamiatnik Arkhiepiskopu Luke?” (WhoRaised the Monument to Archbishop Luke?), Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia) , № 17 (1566), September 1/14, 1996, p. 10; I.I. Voloshin, “Kanonizatsia Moskovskoj patriarkhiejarkhiepiskopa Luka (Vojno-Yasenetskogo) kak znamenie vremeni (“The Canonization by theMoscow Patriarchate of Archbishop Luke (Vojno-Yasenetsky) as a sign of the times),Vertograd-Inform, № 6 (63), 2000, pp. 8-17 ®.

46

forestalled possible new accusations of the council’s lack of competency andrepresentativeness, etc. for the election of a patriarch from the foreign part ofthe Orthodoxy clergy… So that the very fact of the election of a new patriarchshould not elicit doubts, the patriarchs of the Orthodox churches and theirrepresentatives from Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and the Middle East wereinvited for the first time to Moscow.’ And although in the actual council onlythree patriarchs – those of Georgia, Alexandria and Antioch – took part,representatives from other local churches also arrived; they were speciallybrought to Moscow by Soviet military aeroplanes.

“The council opened on January 31, 1945 with a speech of welcome in thename of the Soviet Stalinist regime by the president of the Council for theAffairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, NKVD Major-General G. Karpov. Henoted that the council ‘was an outstanding event in the life of the Church’,whose activity was directed ‘towards helping the Soviet people to secure thegreat historical aims set before it’, that is, the construction of ‘communistsociety’.

“In its turn the council did not miss the opportunity yet again to express itsgratitude and assure the communist party, the government and Stalinpersonally of its sincere devotion. As the address put it: ‘The Councilprofoundly appreciates the trusting, and to the highest degree benevolent andattentive attitude towards all church undertakings on the part of the stateauthorities… and expresses to our Government our sincerely gratefulfeelings’.

“As was planned, the sole candidate as the new Soviet patriarch wasunanimously confirmed at the council – Metropolitan Alexis (Simansky).Besides this, a new ‘Temporary Statute for the Administration of the RussianOrthodox Church’, composed by workers at the Council for the Affairs of theRussian Orthodox Church and the chancellor of the MP, Protopriest NicholasKolchitsky, was accepted at the council. This Statute radically contradictedthe canonical principles of Orthodoxy. ‘This Statute turned the Moscowpatriarchate into a certain likeness of a totalitarian structure, in which threepeople at the head with the so-called “patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’”received greater power than a local council, and the right to administer theChurch in a still more dictatorial fashion than Peter’s synod. But if theemperors up to 1917 were nevertheless considered to be Orthodox Christians,now the official structures of the Church were absolutely subject to the will ofthe leaders of the God-fighting regime. Church history has not seen such a fallin 2000 years of Christianity!’ By accepting in 1945 the new Statute on theadministration of the Russian Orthodox Church that contradicted from thefirst to the last letter the conciliar-canonical principles of the administration ofthe Church confirmed at the All-Russian Local Church Council of 1917-1918,the Moscow patriarchate once more confirmed its own Soviet path of originand development, and also the absence of any kind of link or descent from the

47

canonical ‘Tikhonite’ Church, which legally existed in the country until1927.”100

The MP, having meekly submitted to the rule of the totalitarian dictatorStalin, was now in effect a totalitarian organization itself. All decisions in theChurch depended effectively on the single will of the patriarch, and throughhim, of Stalin. For, as Fr. Sergius Gordun has written: “For decades theposition of the Church was such that the voice of the clergy and laity couldnot be heard. In accordance with the document accepted by the Local Councilof 1945, in questions requiring the agreement of the government of the USSR,the patriarch would confer with the Council for the Affairs of the OrthodoxChurch attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR. TheStatute did not even sketchily outline the range of questions in which thepatriarch was bound to agree with the Council, which gave the latter theability to exert unlimited control over church life.”101

The power over the Church that the 1945 council gave to the atheists wasrevealed in the secret 1974 Furov report of the Council for Religious Affairs tothe Central Committee: “The Synod is under the control of the Council forReligious Affairs. The question of the selection and placing of its permanentmembers was and remains completely in the hands of the Council, and thecandidature of the non-permanent members is also agreed beforehand withresponsible members of the Council. All issues which are to be discussed atthe Synod are first discussed by Patriarch Pimen and the permanent membersof the Synod with the leaders of the Council and in its departments, and thefinal ‘Decisions of the Holy Synod’ are also agreed.”102

After the enthronement of Alexis (on February 4), Stalin ordered theCouncil to congratulate Alexis and give him “a commemorative present. Thevalue of the gift was determined at 25-30,000 rubles. Stalin loved to givevaluable presents. It was also decided to ‘show gratitude’ to the foreignbishops for their participation in the Council. The commissariat was told tohand over 42 objects from the depositories of the Moscow museums and 28from the Zagorsk state museum – mainly objects used in Orthodox worship –which were used as gifts for the Eastern Patriarchs. Thus, for example,Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria was given a golden panagia withvaluable stones… Naturally, the patriarchs were expected to reciprocate, andthey hastened to express the main thing – praise… Patriarch Christopher ofAlexandria said: ‘Marshal Stalin,… under whose leadership the militaryoperations have been conducted on an unprecedented scale, has for thispurpose an abundance of divine grace and blessing.’”103

100 Shumilo, op. cit.101 Gordun, op. cit., p. 94.102 Jane Ellis, The Russian Orthodox Church, London: Croom Helm, 1986, p. 215.103 Alexeyev, "Marshal Stalin doveriaet Tserkvi" (Marshal Stalin trusts the Church), Agitator,№ 10, 1989, pp. 27-28 ®. Patriarch Christopher was always something of a sergianist. In a

48

As was to be expected, the Eastern Patriarchs recognised the canonicity ofthe election, “hastening,” as Shumilo says, “to assure themselves of thesupport of the head of the biggest and wealthiest patriarchate, which now,moreover, had acquired ‘the clemency [appropriate to] a great power’”.104 Theprice they paid for the favour of this “great power” was an agreement tobreak communion with ROCOR. As Karpov reported: “The Council was aclear proof of the absence of religion in the USSR [!] and also had a certainpolitical significance. The Moscow Patriarchate in particular agreed withPatriarch Christopher of Alexandria and with the representatives of theConstantinople and Jerusalem patriarchates to break links with MetropolitanAnastasy, and on the necessity of a joint struggle against the Vatican.”105

The Tragedy of the Vlasovites

After the victory of the Soviets, many Russian émigrés were swept up by afeeling of nostalgia for what they thought was their homeland, and, in thewords of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, began to “fraternize with the Sovietsbecause they sense in the Soviet Union the Soviet Union of the Russianpeople”106. Typical of the feelings of many at the time were the words ofMetropolitan Eulogius of Paris, full of emotion but with no spiritual,ecclesiastical content: “The holy Mother Russian Church is calling us to returnto her bosom. Shall we decline this maternal call? Our soul has sufferedenough in exile abroad. It is time to go home. The higher ecclesiasticalauthorities promise us a peaceful development of church life. I want to kissmy native Russian land. We want peace in the bosom of our native MotherChurch – both us old men, in order to find a final peace, and the young andthe middle-aged, in order to work on the regeneration of the Homeland, andto heal her yawning wounds. Without fear or doubt, and without disturbance,let us go to our native land: it is so good, so beautiful…”107

Still more tragic was the fate of who were forcibly returned by the westernallied governments in accordance with the Yalta agreement. “From 1945 to

paper entitled “The Recognition of the Patriarchs by the State”, written in 1937 when he wasMetropolitan of Leontopolis, he stated, falsely, that “from the beginning, according to thecustom prevailing in the Church, which was so continuously maintained, so that the law orcanon was rendered inviolable, there is no Archbishop or Patriarch in the Church who wasnot recognized by the State after his ecclesiastical election. If someone was elected and notrecognized by the State, he hastened to or was compelled to abdicate, in order for someone tobe elected in his place. Such great importance was given in the Church to the confirmation ofthe election of the Patriarchs by the State that the ecclesiastical election ended up by beingregarded as wholly non-existent if the recognition of the State did not follow, and after this,the enthronement…”104 Shumilo, op. cit.105 RTsKhIDNI.F.17.Op.132.D.111.L.27; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 81.106 Nabokov, in B. Boyd, Nabokov: The American Years, London, 1992, p. 85.107 Eulogius, Puti moej zhizni (The Ways of My Life), p. 613; in Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3,p. 81. Eulogius did not return in the end, as we shall see below.

49

1947, 2,272,000 people were handed over by the Allies to the USSR. Of thesemore than 600,000 had served in the ‘eastern forces’ of the German army.About 200,000 managed to remain in the West.”108

The largest category of those forcibly repatriated was composed of thosewho had fought in the Soviet army. Protopriest Michael Ardov writes: “Iremember quite well the years right after the war, 1945, 1946, and howMoscow was literally flooded with cripples, soldiers who were missing armsand legs, returning from the war, and then, suddenly, they all disappeared.Only later did I learn that they were all picked up and packed off to die on theisland of Valaam, in order not to spoil the view in the capital. There was nomonastery there then. You can just imagine for yourselves the conditions thatthey had to endure there while living out their last days. They were so poor,and were reduced to begging in order to survive. This is how they weretreated, just so that the capital should not be spoiled by their presence! This Iremember quite well. Besides this, as we all know that, because of Stalin andhis military leaders, an enormous number of Soviet citizens were taken out ofthe country as prisoners. The government immediately disowned them; theywere immediately branded traitors. And the consequences of this were thatwhen they, for some reason or another, came back to our country, most ofthem were whisked off to Stalin’s labour camps. This is how they treated theveterans then…”109

Another category was composed of the soldiers who fought on the Germanside in General A.A. Vlasov’s “Russian Liberation Army”. In May, 1945, inLienz in Austria, “the English occupying authorities handed over to Stalin tocertain death some tens of thousands of Cossacks who had fought in the lastmonths of the war on the side of Germany. Eye-witnesses of this drama recallthat the hand-over began right during the time of the final liturgy, whichSmersh did not allow to finish. Many Cossacks tried to hurl themselves intothe abyss so as not to be delivered to the communists, and the first shots wereheard from the Soviet occupational zone already a few minutes after thehand-over. It is interesting that the then head of ROCOR, MetropolitanAnastasy, blessed the Cossacks who had formally ended their lives throughsuicide because they did not want to fall into the hands of the Reds, to be

108 Soldatov, op. cit., p. 11, footnote 6. However, Shumilo (op. cit.) says: “more than 6 million‘Soviet’ prisoners of war, ‘Osty’ workers, refugees and émigrés were forcibly repatriated tothe U.S.S.R. up to 1948. The majority of them perished within the walls of Stalin’s NKVD.”109 Ardov, “Avoiding participation in the Great Victory Services”, sermon given on May 8,2005, Vertograd, May 18, 2005; translated in The Hoffman Wire, May 18, 2005). Shumilo writes:“Under the pretext of restoring ‘socialist legality’ whole families, and even settlements, weresent to Siberia, mainly from Western Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic region. By the end ofthe 40s, Soviet Marshal Zhukov had ordered the forcible removal from Western Ukraine toSiberia, Kazakhstan and other regions of more than 600,000 people” (op. cit.). AlexanderYakovlev writes that during the war the authorities executed 157,000 Red Army soldiers (theequivalent of fifteen divisions) and almost a million were arrested (A Century of RussianViolence in Soviet Russia, Yale University Press, 2003).

50

given a church burial. ‘Their actions,’ he wrote, ‘are closer to the exploit of St.Pelagia of Antioch, who hurled herself from a tall tower so as escapedesecration [rape].’…”110

A similar tragedy took place in Kempten. On August 25, 1945,Metropolitan Anastasy wrote about it to General Eisenhower from Munich,where ROCOR had just moved its headquarters: “After seven years of terriblewar, the sun of peace has arisen over the suffering earth. This peace was wonby the heroism of the Allied Armies and by the wisdom, courage and self-sacrifical valour of these leaders. Among these names yours stands in the firstplace. These names will be blessed by those people to whom the victory of theAllied Armies returned freedom. It was with a feeling of profoundsatisfaction that this victory was greeted by émigrés from various countrieswho now live in Germany… Only the Russians, of whom there were more inGermany than the representatives of any other nation, were deprived of thisjoy. They were forced to remain in a foreign land because between them andtheir Home was a wall which their conscience and common sense did notallow them to cross… The Russians, of course, love their homeland no lessthan the French, the Belgians or the Italians love theirs. The Russians arenostalgic for their homeland. If, in spite of this, they still prefer to remain in aforeign land, having no domicile, often hungry and with no juridical defence,this is only for one reason: they want to preserve the greatest value on earth –freedom: freedom of conscience, freedom of the word, the right to propertyand personal security. Many of them have already grown old and would liketo die in their homeland, but this is impossible as long as there reigns there apower which is based on terror and the suppression of the humanpersonality… It is a remarkable fact that not only intelligentsia, but alsopeasants and simple workers, who left Russia after 1941, when it entered intowar, and who were brought up in the conditions of Soviet life, do not want toreturn to Soviet Russia. When attempts were made to deport them, they criedout in despair and prayed for mercy. Sometimes they even committed suicide,preferring death in a foreign land to returning to a homeland where onlysufferings await them. Such a tragic event took place on August 12 inKempten. In the this place, in the DP camp, there was a large concentration ofRussian émigrés, that is, people who had left Russia after the revolution, andalso former Soviet citizens who a little later expressed their desire to remainabroad. When the American soldiers appeared at the camp with the aim ofdividing these émigrés into two categories and hand over the former Sovietcitizens into the hands of the Soviets, they found all the émigrés in churchardently praying to God that He save them from deportation. Being

110 Soldatov, op. cit.; Archbishop Savva (Raevsky), “Lienz”, Orthodox Life, vol. 56, № 4, 2005, pp. 2-8. Soldatov continues: “In the Catacomb Church a tradition has been preserved aboutSchema-Monk Leontius (Mymrikov), who blessed True Orthodox Christians to go to waragainst the communists.” Schema-Monk Epiphanius (Chernov) writes of several CatacombChurch martyrs who were shot for refusing to fight in the Soviet army (Tserkov’ Katakombnaiana Zemle Rossijskoj (The Catacomb Church on the Russian Land), Woking, 1980 (MS) ®).

51

completely defenceless and abandoned, they considered the church to be theirlast and only refuge. They offered no active resistance. The people onlykneeled and prayed for mercy, trying, in complete despair, to kiss the handsand even the feet of the officers. In spite of this, they were forcibly expelledfrom the church. The soldiers dragged women and children by the hair andbeat them. Even the priests were not left in peace. The priests tried by allmeans to defend their flock, but without success. One of them, an old andrespected priest, was dragged away by the beard. Another spat blood out ofhis mouth after one of the soldiers, trying to pull the cross out of his hands,struck him in the face. The soldiers rushed into the altar in pursuit of thepeople. The iconostasis, which separates the sanctuary from the church, wasbroken in two places, the altar was overthrown and several icons were hurledto the ground. Several people were wounded, two tried to poison themselves.One woman tried to save her child by throwing it through the window, butthe man outside who caught this child in his arms was wounded by a bulletin the stomach. You can imagine what a huge impression this made on all thewitnesses. It especially shocked the Russians, who were in now wayexpecting such behaviour from American soldiers. Up to that point they hadseen in them only help and support. The American authorities have alwaysshown respect and goodwill to Russian churches and church organizations.Many Russians strove to get into the American zone of occupation because oftheir hope of being defended by the valorous American army… The Russianpeople consider the tragedy in Kempten to be an isolated case, which tookplace because of a misunderstanding. They firmly believe that nothing likethis will ever happen again. They hope that benevolent help will be given tothem as before. They are convinced that the victorious American Army, theArmy of a country which is glorified by its love for freedom and humanity,will understand their desire to defend their finest national and religiousideals, for the sake of which they have been suffering for more than 25 years.We joyfully note that we, Russian émigrés in Europe, are not alone in thisrespect. We have recently received news from the bishops of our Church inthe United States that they have not agreed to recognize the newly electedpatriarch in Russia. They consider that it would be incompatible with theirfeeling of dignity and with their priestly conscience to be in subjection to aninstitution that is under the complete control of the Soviet government, whichis trying to use it for its own ends. The voice of our brothers speaks about theconvictions of their numerous flock in the USA… We are strengthened in thebelief that we stand on the right path in defending our independence from theMuscovite ecclesiastical and political authorities until the establishment of anew order in our country that is based on the principle of true democracy,that is, freedom, brotherhood and justice. In obtaining a glorious victorytogether with its allies, and in pushing its frontiers forward, Russia couldbecome the happiest of countries, if only if returned to a healthy political andsocial life. Being convinced that the victory of eternal truth will finallytriumph, we continually pray that better days come for her, for Russia, and

52

that peace and prosperity may be established throughout the world after thedays of war have passed. May the blessing of the Lord be upon you.”111

There is no doubt that the tragedies that took place at Lientz and Kemptenconstitute serious stains on the reputation of Britain and America – althoughMetropolitan Anastasy clearly preferred them to the Nazis or the Soviets.

The East European Churches Submit

As a result of their attendance at the false council of 1945, the officialOrthodox Churches of Eastern Europe were soon drawn into the communistorbit. In the cases of the Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian Churches, thishappened after the fall of the Orthodox monarchy. Thus the communistpenetration of the Romanian Church began shortly after the abdication ofKing Michael on December 30, 1947.

After his liberation from Dachau, Patriarch Gabriel of Serbia was living inItaly and did not want to go to Yugoslavia, waiting for the return to thecountry of King Peter. In their patriarch’s absence, the Serbian hierarchsobediently did the will of Moscow. Thus on May 19-20, 1946 a HierarchicalCouncil allowed the Church in Czechoslovakia to enter the MP.112

However, in the autumn of 1946 Archbishop Eleutherius (Vorontsov) ofthe MP persuaded Patriarch Gabriel to change his mind. In a report to theCentral Committee on February 14, 1947, G. Karpov remarked thatArchbishop Eleutherius ‘at the command of Patriarch Alexis has conducted aseries of conversations with Gabriel and persuaded him of the necessity ofreturning to Yugoslavia and working with the democratic government ofTito, abandoning hopes of the restoration of the monarchy. In Decembe, 1946the Serbian patriarch declared that he remains faithful to the traditionalfriendship with Russia and categorically rejects an orientation towards theWest. Patriarch Gabriel also expressed the thought of the necessity of thegathering in Moscow of representatives of all the Orthodox Churches. At thePan-Slavic Congress in Belgrade in December, 1946, Patriarch Gabrielexpressed that which we in Moscow have been impatiently waiting for him tosay: ‘… he considers that the seniority in the Orthodox world should belongto the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Russian Church should become theMother for the Slavic churches.’ Developing this thought and noting the anti-Slavic and anti-Soviet ‘undermining’ work of the Vatican, Patriarch Gabrielsaid: ‘That is why we need to be together with the Russian people and theRussian Church, in order to oppose all the snares and enemy intrigues of thewhole of the West headed by the Pope of Rome and his supporters.”113

111 Prot. A. Kiselev, Oblik gen. A.A. Vlasova (The Face of General A.A. Vlasov), appendix VI;Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 90-93.112 This decision that was confirmed on May 15, 1948 (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 110).113 RTsKhIDNI, f. 17, op. 125, d. 407, l. 27; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 114.

53

The patriarch’s fellow prisoner in Dachau, Bishop Nicholas Velimirovich,chose not to return to communist Yugoslavia, but emigrated to America. In1951 he settled in the American Metropolia’s St. Tikhon monastery,eventually becoming rector.114 He reposed in 1956. Bishop Nicholas’ decisionwas shown to have been prudent in 1947, when Tito placed a Catholic at thehead of the Commission for religious confessions. Many priests then began tobe imprisoned…115

“A report dated October 18, 1961 and prepared by the United StatesSenate’s Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the InternalSecurity Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on theJudiciary, traces the way in which the hierarchy of the Mother Church passedunder the control of the atheist government of Communist Yugoslavia: ‘…After the liberation of Yugoslavia, the Communists began persecuting allreligions. Immediately after the war, the Orthodox Metropolitan ofMontenegro, Joanikije Lipovac, and 70 of his priests were killed. A number ofOrthodox priests were put in jails and, in 1947, American-born BishopBarnabas Nastic was sentenced to 11 years in prison [where he died].Patriarch Gabriel died in 1950. After his death, the Holy Synod of the SerbianOrthodox Church wanted to elect as the new patriarch a strong man,Metropolitan Joseph Cvijovič, of Skopje. 116 To prevent this, the regimeordered his arrest. Then it made certain that the new patriarch would be a‘cooperative’ one, and forced the election of a weak man, Bishop VikentijeProdanov, who became a manageable tool of communist propaganda.’”117

Meanwhile, those who had resisted the communists during the war werepurged. Thus “it has been estimated that up to 250,000 people [of all thenations of Yugoslavia] were killed by Tito’s mass shootings, forced deathmarches and concentration camps in the period 1945-6.”118

114 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 12.115 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 122-123.116 Archbishop Averky of Jordanville recounts the following event in the life of MetropolitanJoseph, who died in 1957: “An antireligious manifestation was once passing along the streetsof Belgrade heading for the building of the Patriarchate where Metropolitan Joseph lived.They stopped in front of the windows and began to shout: ‘Down with Joseph! Down withJoseph!’ Without losing his presence of mind in any way, the metropolitan went out onto thebalcony and in the booming voice with which he usually preached in front of manythousands of believers, cried out, as if perplexity, asking who they were talking about: ‘Downwith Joseph? Which Joseph: Broz [i.e. Tito] or Stalin?’” (Sovremennost’ v svete Slova Bozhia (TheContemporary World in the Light of the Word of God), Sermons and Speeches, vol. I (1951-1960),Jordanville, 1975, St. Petersburg, 1995, p. 255 ®. (V.M.)117 The Diocesan Council of the Free Serbian Orthodox Diocese of the U.S.A. and Canada, ATime to Choose, Third Lake, Ill.: Monastery of the Most Holy Mother of God, 1981, p. 10.However, Monk Benjamin (op. cit. , http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis4, htm, “Letopis’Tserkovnykh Sobytij” (Chronicle of Church Events), vol. 4, p. 2) has a higher opinion ofPatriarch Vikentije.118 Norman Malcolm, Bosnia. A Short History, London: Papermac, 1996, p.193.

54

Among these was the leader of the royalist Chetnik resistance to thePartisans, Draza Mikhailovič, who was executed by the communists on July4/17, 1946, and was venerated as a new martyr by the Free Serbs of America(who have now returned to the patriarchate).119

During the war, King Boris III of Bulgaria had tried to preserve hiscountry’s neutrality between Hitler and Stalin, and, through the persuasion ofMetropolitan Stefan of Sophia, had refused to allow the Bulgarian Jews to betaken to Hitler’s death-camps; for which he was killed in 1943.

Professor Ya.Ya. Etinger tells the story as follows: “Hitler demanded fromhis ally Bulgaria the despatch of all the Jews of Bulgaria, Macedonia andThrace to Auschwitz – about 48,000 people were subject to deportation. Thehead of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Stefan of Sophia, onlearning from the chief rabbi Asher Khamanel, the president of the capital’sJewish community, that ‘the Commissariat for Jewish questions’ had alreadyprepared the first lists of eminent Jews subject to deportation to Hitler’s deathcamps, openly declared: ‘I will conceal all the Jews in the churches andmonasteries, but I will not hand them over for reprisals.’ He personallydemanded that Prime-Minister Filov revoke the arrests of Jews in a series ofcities in the country. The metropolitan also sent a letter to Tsar Boris, in whichhe wrote: ‘Let us not commit abominations, for which our good-heartedpeople will sometime have to feel shame, and perhaps other misfortunes.’ Themetropolitan promised that he himself would remain under house arrest untilthe arrested Jews were released. For this he was accused by the local fascistorganizations of ‘betrayal of the race and treachery’. Rabbi Khamanel, whomthe police were hunting, was hidden by the metropolitan in his own podvorie.On May 24, the day of the national feast of SS. Cyril and Methodius,thousands of people came out onto the streets of the capital declaring thatthey would not tolerate the murder of their fellow citizens. Another highlyplaced clergyman, Metropolitan Cyril of Plovdiv, later patriarch of Bulgaria,also sent an epistle to the tsar. In his letter he demanded that the tsarimmediately revoke the barbaric order. Otherwise, declared the metropolitan,he would not answer for the actions of the people and clergy. According tothe reminiscences of eye-witnesses, he warned the local police authorities thathe had said to the Jews of one of the poorest quarters of the city: ‘I presentyou my house. Let us see whether they will be able to get you out of there.’And in a letter to Filov he said that he would go with a cross in his hands to

119 Some doubt whether Mikhailovich was a true martyr, accusing him of practising "ethniccleansing" against Muslims during World War II. See Norman Cigar, Genocide in Bosnia, TexasA&M University Press, 1995, pp. 18-19. However, Norman Malcolm argues (op. cit., p. 179)that there is no definite evidence for this. So does Tim Judah (The Serbs, London: YaleUniversity Press, 1997, pp. 120-121). See also K. Glazkov, "K 50-letiu raspravy nadDragoliubom-Drazhej Mikhailovichem" (To the 50th Anniversary of the Execution of Draza-Dragoliuboj Mikhailovich), Pravoslavnaia Rus' (Orthodox Russia), № 17 (1566), 1/14 September, 1996, p. 5 ®.

55

the death camp in Poland ahead of the convoys with the Jews. These manyprotest actions attained their goal and the deportation was stopped. TsarBoris III invited the German consul, A. Bickerle, and categorically declared:‘The Jews of my country are its subjects and every encroachment on theirfreedom will be perceived by us as an insult to the Bulgarians.’ PrimeMinister B. Filov wrote in his diary: ‘His Majesty completely revoked themeasures taken against the Jews.’ On returning from Hitler’s head-quarterson August 28, 1943, Tsar Boris very soon died. There are grounds forsupposing that he was killed by the Hitlerites for refusing to carry out the willof the Fuhrer.”120

After the death of Tsar Boris, his brother, Prince Cyril, became regent andcontinued the same policy. But after the Soviet troops entered Bulgaria he wasarrested and shot on “Bloody Thursday”, February 3, 1945.121

So-called associations of priests controlled by the communists wereinfiltrated into the Church of Bulgaria, as into neighbouring Serbia. “Afterassuming power,” writes Ivan Marchevsky, “the communists began todestroy the clergy: a third of the 2000 members of the clergy was killed. Thenthey began to act in a different way: Vladykas appointed ‘from above’ordained obedient priests.”122

Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar, formerly of ROCOR, alsojoined the MP – although, according to his spiritual daughter, AbbessSeraphima (Lieven), he continued to call the Soviet power “satanic” and tooppose the infiltration of communist influence into the Bulgarian Church.

In August, 1948, Metropolitan Dionysius, head of the Polish Church,petitioned the MP to be received into communion, repenting of his “unlawfulautocephaly”. In November, the MP granted his request, and granted thePolish Church autocephaly – again. However, because of his “sin ofautocephaly”, and because he had accepted the title of “His Beatitude”,Dionysius was not allowed to remain head of the Church.123

Another reason may have been his participation in the creation of theUkrainian Autocephalous Church during the war. This decision remained inforce despite a plea on Dionysius’ behalf by Patriarch Athenagoras ofConstantinople in February, 1950.124 In 1951, at the Poles’ request, the MP

120 Etinger, Spasennie v Kholokoste (The Saved in the Holocaust); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part3, pp. 52-53.121 Tsankov, Protopriest S. "Pokojnij Tsar Boris, kak religiozno-nravstvennaia lichnost'" (TheReposed Tsar Boris as a Religio-Moral Personality), Pravoslavnaia Rus' (Orthodox Russia), № 18(1495), 15/28 September, 1993 ®; David Horbury, "Prince Kyril - Time to Restore History'sVictim", Royalty, 1996, vol. 14, № 5, pp. 64-71.122 Marchevsky, in Pravoslavnaia Rus' (Orthodox Russia), № 1 (1454), January 1/14, 1992, p. 15.123 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 138-139.124 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, pp. 1-2, 4.

56

appointed a new metropolitan for the Polish Church125, and from now on thePolish Church, though new calendar, returned to Moscow’s orbit.

In 1948 the head of the Albanian Orthodox Church, ArchbishopChristopher of Tirana, was deposed and imprisoned by the communistgovernment for “hostile activity in relation to the Albanian people”.126 Then,from February 5 to 10, 1950, a Local Council of the Albanian Church tookplace in Tirana. A new constitution was worked out in which it was declaredthat the elections of the clergy should take place with the participation of thelaity. A pseudo-patriotic note was sounded in article 4: “Parallel with thedevelopment of religious feeling, the Orthodox Autocephalous AlbanianChurch must instil into believers feelings of devotion to the authorities of thepeople of the People’s Republic of Albania, and also feelings of patriotism andof striving for the strengthening of national unity. Therefore all the priestsand co-workers of the Church must be Albanian citizens, honourable, devotedto the people and the Homeland, enjoying all civil rights.” The episcopate hadto pronounce the following oath: “I swear by my conscience before God that Iwill preserve the faith and domas, canons and Tradition of the OrthodoxChurch, and faithfulness to the people of the Albanian People’s Republic andits democratic principles, as prescribed by the Constitution.”127

On March 5 the new head of the Albanian Church, Archbishop Paisius,gave a speech in front of the All-Albanian conference in defence of peace inwhich he said: “In agreement with the great ideals of love, brotherhood andpeace throughout the world on which the Church is based, we will strugglefor the holy affair of the liberation of the whole of mankind from hostileencroachments on its peaceful life. This task must be unanimouslyaccomplished by all our clergy, as preachers of peace who are bound to directthe will of the flock to the struggle for peace… We preach peace, but we knowthat peace is not given gratis, therefore we bless the struggle for the finalvictory over those who are stirring up war…”128

ROCOR moves to America

Archbishop Averky writes: “In September, 1944, when the Soviet armieswere already approaching Belgrade, the main mass of Russian inhabitants ofthe city set off for Vienna. Metropolitan Anastasy with the whole staff of theHierarchical Synod and the chancellery were also evacuated there. And inVienna he did not cease to perform Divine services in our two churches – theold embassy church and the new house church – literally under bombs and

125 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, pp. 11-12.126 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 141.127 K.E. Skurat, Istoria Pomestnykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvej (A History of the Local OrthodoxChurches), in Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 1.128 Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), № 8, 1951; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 2.

57

amidst flaming conflagrations. Here, too, the wonder-working icon every daywent round the houses and refuges of Russian people and even of someAustrians who had been penetrated by the greatest respect for our holy objectin consequence of the miraculous signs that clearly came from it.

“From Vienna Vladyka Metropolitan and the whole Synod moved first toKarlsbad [on November 10], and then – already after the end of the war – inthe summer of 1945 to the city of Munich, which for a time became a majorcentre of Russian ecclesiastical and public life. In Munich alone and itssuburbs about 14 parishes were created, and a very intensive church life wasconducted in many places with daily Divine services. In the summer of thisyear of 1945 Vladyka Metropolian and Metropolitan Seraphim consecratedArchimandrite Alexander (Lovchy), the rector of a Munich parish, as Bishopof Kissingen, a vicariate of the German diocese.

“Wishing to restore the links between the separate parts of the RussianChurch Abroad with the Hierarchical Synod after the disruption caused bythe war, Vladyka Metropolitan succeeded in obtaining permission to go toSwitzerland, and from Geneva he quickly established contact by writing withall the countries containing church communities subject to our RussianChurch Abroad, which strengthened the organization of our Church Abroadthat was about to collapse.

“In Switzerland Vladyka Metropolitan remained for about 7 months, andin this period he, together with Bishop Jerome who arrived from America,carried out two hierarchical consecrations – Archimandrite Seraphim (Ivanov)as Bishop of Santiago, and Archimandrite Nathanael as Bishop of Brusselsand Western Europe.

“By Pascha, 1946 he had returned to Munich, where he soon, on April 23,he convened a Council of Bishops Abroad, in which the bishops of theAutonomous Ukrainian and Belorussian Churches took part with identicalrights to those of the representatives of other districts. 129 15 hierarchs

129 These bishops were: Metropolitan Panteleimon (Rozhnovsky), who immediately leftROCOR and remained out of communion with any Church until his death in 1950;Archbishop Benedict (Bobkovsky), formerly of Grodno and Belostok, who received anappointment in Germany until his death in 1951; Archbishop Philotheus (Harko), formerly ofMogilev and Mstislav, who became Archbishop of Hamburg until his death in 1986; BishopAthanasius (Martos), formerly of Vitebsk and Podolsk, who was appointed as Archbishop inAustralia until his death in 1985; Bishop Stefan (Sevbo), formerly of Smolensk, who wasappointed Bishop of Vienna until his death in 1965; Bishop Paul (Melentiev), formerly ofBriansk, who fell away into Catholicism in 1948; Bishop Gregory (Boriskevich), formerly ofGomel, who became a bishop in Canada and then the USA, dying in 1957; Bishop Theodore(Rafalsky), formerly of Brest, who received an appointment in Australia until his death in1955; Archbishop Panteleimon (Rudyk), formerly of Kiev, who was appointed to Argentina,but in 1957 was expelled from ROCOR for homosexuality and in 1959 joined the MP, dying in1968; Bishop Leonty (Filippovich), formerly of Zhitomir and Volhynia, was appointed toParaguay and then Chile, dying in 1971 (he had joined ROCOR on May 17, 1944); Bishop

58

participated personally in this Council, while the rest, from distant countries,sent their wishes and written opinions on the questions on the agenda…

“After the end of the war Vladyka Metropolitan’s attention was mainlyconcentrated on helping Orthodox Russians to leave devastated Germany andorganize a normal Church life in their new places of residence. A whole seriesof new hierarchical sees was established in various countries, and thehierarchs who had assembled as a result of the war in Western Germanygradually received appointments to these newly-opened sees.

“In September, 1950 Metropolitan Anastasy undertook a journey to theWest European diocese, where he carried out two important acts: in Genevaon September 11/24 he consecrated Archimandrite Leonty (Bartoshevich) asBishop for the Geneva vicariate, and in Brussels on September 18 / October 1he consecrated the newly constructed memorial church to the Tsar-Martyrand all the Russian people killed during the troubles. On returning toGermany on September 25 / October 8, he consecrated a new church inFrankfurt in honour of the Resurrection of Christ.

“From 1948 a vigorous migration of Russian to the United States of NorthAmerica had begun, and many began to ask Vladyka Metropolitan to movethere also together with the Hierarchical Synod. People in America also askedhim to come; there a sad schism had just taken place (in 1946) after the so-called ‘Cleveland council’, at which it was decided [by four out of eightbishops] to move to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarch Alexis. At thebeginning Vladyka Metropolitan wavered, but Munich was becoming moreand more empty, and the refugee camps and the parishes in them weregradually closing down. And finally Vladyka President decided to move towhere most of his flock had moved and where they were urgently invitinghim to come.

“Vladyka Metropolitan Anastasy’s departure for America took place onNovember 10/23, 1950. The next day he arrived at the airport in New Yorkand was triumphantly received in the Ascension cathedral.

“The next day after his arrival, on November 12/25, Vladyka Metropolitanwent to the Holy Trinity monastery in Jordanville, where he carried out atriumphant consecration of the just completed stone monastery church inhonour of the Holy Trinity, after which a Hierarchical Council took place inwhich 11 hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad took part.”130

Eulogius (Markovsky), formerly of Vinnitsa, who received an appointment in North Americaand died in 1951; and Archbishop Demetrius (Magan), formerly of Ekaterinoslav, who in 1948joined the American Metropolita schism and died in 1968 (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp.108-109, 75). For more details of this Council, see G.M. Soldatov, op. cit. (V.M.)130 Averky, op. cit., pp. xiv-xvi.

59

At this Council holy myrrh was sanctified for the first time in ROCOR’shistory. Previously, myrrh had been received from the Serbian Church.131 Thisact had an important symbolical significance: being normally the act of anautocephalous Church, it signified ROCOR’s determination to continue herindependent path.

At this Council the Bishops also “adopted a resolution on the issue of theecumenical movement. It was composed by Archbishop John of WesternEurope and Bishops Nathanael of Brussels and Nicon of Florida. Thisdocument forbade members of ROCOR any form of participation in theecumenical movement, and relegated all contacts with non-OrthodoxChristians to the sphere of cooperative social activities.”132

The ROCOR Synod’s move to North America was timely, because herposition on that continent had been shaken in recent years.

“On October 26-27 [1944] the hierarchs of the Church Abroad in NorthAmerica Archbishop Vitaly, Bishop Jerome and Bishop Joasaph took part inthe Hierarchical Council of North America, in which the election ofMetropolitan Sergius to the Russian patriarchal throne was discussed. Aresolution was passed recognizing the election and indicating that thePatriarch Sergius of Moscow should be commemorated at Divine services –without, however, removing the commemoration of Metropolitans Anastasyand Metropolitan Theophilus of North America. Following this conciliardecision, Metropolitan Theophilus issued an ukaz on the commemoration ofall three hierarchs in all the parishes of North America. This resolution wassigned also by the ROCOR hierarchs Vitaly (Maximenko), Tikhon (Troitsky),Joasaph and Jerome.”133

On May 31, after the death of Sergius, a Council of the Bishops of NorthAmerica under the presidency of Metropolitan Theophilus and with theparticipation of Archbishop Vitaly issued an ukaz on the commemoration ofthe patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Alexis, in all the churches.134

In America, meanwhile, two bishops, Alexis of Alaska and Macarius ofBoston, joined Moscow, as did Bishop Nicholas (Ono) of Tokyo in November,1946.135

131 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 5.132 Andrei Psarev, “The Development of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’sAttitude Toward Other Local Orthodox Churches”,http://www.sobor2006.com/printerfriendly2.php?id=119_0_3_0, p. 6.133 Protopriest Alexander Lebedev. Pora uzhe nam znat’ svoiu istoriu (It’s time we knew ourhistory); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 65.134 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 75.135 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 116-117.

60

In the same month, at a clergy-laity council in Cleveland, with theagreement of Metropolitan Theophilus but without the agreement of the otherbishops, the council was recognized to be the supreme legislative andadministrative organ of the American metropolia – an act which reduced thepower of the bishops to almost nothing. The council decided – against theprotests of five out of the nine bishops – to return to the MP. MetropolitanTheophilus then wrote to the five dissenting bishops that they were excludedfrom his metropolia, and ordered that their names be removed fromcommemoration from the parishes before Pascha. The five dissenters returnedinto submission to ROCOR.136

“In preparation for the council,” writes Andreyev, “it was very interestingand characteristic that the same persons who fought for the Moscowjurisdiction and the split from the [ROCOR] Synod and ‘helped’ MetropolitanEulogius in Europe, moved from Paris to America and began to ‘help’Metropolitan Theophilus [the leader of the American Metropolia]. Withunusual knowledge of church matters, these professors of engineering andother fine arts began to state authoritatively that ‘the Moscow Patriarchate hasnot deviated from the dogmas, canons and rites of Orthodoxy in any way,and the politics conducted by its head, even though it is condemned today bymany, cannot have a decisive influence on its canonical position.’ In this waythe Cleveland council prepared itself by only a formal cooperation with theSynod Abroad, and then, completely backing down from its position,pronounced this resolution: ‘We are passing the resolution to request HisHoliness, the Patriarch of Moscow, to reunite us to his bosom and be ourspiritual father, under the stipulation that we preserve our full autonomy,which exists at the present time. Since the hierarchical authority of thepatriarchate is incompatible with the hierarchical authority of the SynodAbroad of the Russian Orthodox Church, the American Church isdiscontinuing any administrative subordination to the Synod Abroad.”137

In 1947 Metropolitan Gregory, Patriarch Alexis’ ambassador, brought adraft Statute of “the autonomous administration” of the Russian OrthodoxChurch in North American and Canada. In it, as Alexander Bogolepov writes,“the Moscow Patriarch attempted to make subject to his own confirmation theelection of any American Metropolitan, as well as the elections of the diocesanbishops. Patriarch Alexis, in his Ukase of February 16, 1945, recommendedtwo candidates of his own (Metropolitan Benjamin and Archbishop Alexis) tothe All-American Sobor for election as Metropolitan. The Patriarch’s Ukasewen to on to say that this imposed no limitation on the right of the All-American Sobor to nominate and elect its own candidate, but at the same timeit was pointed out that the Moscow Patriarchate had the canonical right to

136 Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko), Motivy moej zhizni (Motifs of my Life), 1955; MonkBenjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 117-118.137 I.M. Andreyev, History of the Russian Church from the Revolution to our Days , Jordanville,1952; quoted in Is the Grace of God present in the Soviet Church?, Wildwood, Alberta, 2000, p. 88.

61

refuse to confirm the candidate so elected for any reason whatsoever.According to Metropolitan Gregory’s Draft Statute, the Metropolitan and theBishops of the American Church were subject to approval by the MoscowPatriarch and could be deposed by him. This would make possible thegradual replacement of the entire episcopate; diocesan bishops would all bereplaced by bishops agreeable to Moscow. According to the same draft, thedecrees of the All-American Sobor would be subject to confirmation by theBishops’ Sobor, and, by the same token, its entire activity would besubordinated to an episcopate faithful to Moscow.”138

Such a degree of subordination to Moscow proved unacceptable to theAmerican Metropolia, and the union did not take place for the time being.However, neither did the Metropolitan return to ROCOR…

In spite of the defection of the American Metropolia, ROCOR in Americacontinued to grow. Moreover, as Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) ofJordanville pointed out, “a normal relationship to the question ofAmericanisation has been found. Instead of completely renouncing theRussian Church style of life and complete Americanisation, even in theecclesiastical and Divine services sphere, an American Orthodox Missionattached to the Synod has been organised, headed by an AmericanArchbishop, James (Iakov). He has American clergy, and does missionarywork among Americans, organising American parishes out of them.”139

In 1949 Bishop Leontius of Paraguay briefly started commemorating theAmerican Metropolia together with Metropolitan Anastasy, but when placedunder ban, soon returned to ROCOR.140

The Greek Church during the War

The 1930s and 40s were a time of great distress and physical hardship forthe Greek people caused by the economic depression and the Europeanconflict between the communists and the fascists. George Lardas writes: “TheCommunist party made a small but significant showing in Parliament for thefirst time in 1935. That same year the monarchy was restored and KingGeorge II returned to Greece. In 1936 Communist agitation disrupted thecountry, and to forestall civil war John Metaxas imposed martial law with theconsent of the King and the senior politicians, and became dictator.”141

138 Bogolepov, Toward An Americah Orthodox Church: The Establishment of an AutocephalousOrthodox Church, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1963, 2001, pp. 96-97.139 Maximenko, sppech at the Fifth Diocesan Congress, 3/16 March, 1952; in Motivy moejzhizni (Motives of my Life), Jordanville, 1955; reprinted in Troitskij Pravoslavnij Kalendar’ na 2006g. (Trinity Orthodox Calendar for 2006), p. 67 ®.140 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 142-143.141 Lardas, “The Old Calendar Movement in the Greek Church”, Holy Trinity Monastery,Jurdanville, 1983 (unpublished thesis).

62

The Italian invasion of 1939 was repelled, only to be followed in April, 1941by the German occupation. Greece was divided between the Bulgarians (inthe north), the Germans (in the centre and Athens) and the Italians (in the restof the country). Many priests perished at the hands of the German, Italian andBulgarian forces during the occupation of 1941-1944.142

In March, 1944 the German SS General Jorgen Strupp demanded fromGrand Rabbi Barzilayu a list of names and addresses of all representatives ofthe Jewish community in Athens. Barzilayu knew that, a year before, theGermans had deported 46,000 Jews from Thessalonica to the death-camps…He appealed to the Greek civil authorities, but without success. However, hedid receive support from the newcalendarist Archbishop Damascene(Papandreou) of Athens, with the help of whom about 1400 Jews weresaved.143 Similar examples of courage in defence of the Jews were shown bythe metropolitans of Corfu and Zakynthus.

War against the German invaders immediately passed into the Greek civilwar between the royalists and the communists. On December 26, 1944 theBritish Prime Minister Winston Churchill and American and Frenchrepresentatives arrived in Athens and met with the warring sides. ArchbishopDamascene also tried to mediate. Churchill eventually persuaded the Greekking to make Archbishop Damascene the temporary head of the governmenton condition that the communists did not form part of it.144 On September 28,1946, as the result of a plebiscite, King George II returned to Athens.

Both the State Church and the True Orthodox Church suffered greatly atthe hands of ELAS, EAM and other communist guerrilla organizations. Morethan 200 Orthodox priests were murdered by Communist partisans duringthe civil conflicts of 1943-1949, often with a bestial cruelty quite up to that oftheir Soviet counterparts. However, atheism never gained a strong foothold inGreece – in a poll carried out in 1951 only 121 out of 7,500,000 people declaredthemselves to be atheists.145

It was at this time that the two major struggles of the Orthodox Church inthis century – against Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, and againstnewcalendarist ecumenism in Greece, Romania and the West – began tomerge. Thus the Greeks discovered by experience the horrors of Communism,while the new calendarist and Balkan hierarchs were called (in February,1945) to travel to Moscow and legitimise the “election” of Stalin’s puppet,

142 Bishop Ambrose of Methone, personal communication, November 5, 2005. For example, onApril 20, 1943 Fr. Constantine Angelakis was shot for taking part in a Greek nationalliberation movement (Ekklesiastiki Aletheia (Church Truth), December 16, 1977; MonkBenjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 49).143 George Margaritis, The Greek Church and the Holocaust, p. 13; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part3, p. 49.144 Churchill, Road to Victory; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 79.145 Bishop Callistus (Ware); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 14.

63

“Patriarch” Alexis of Moscow. And a few years later, the tentacles ofEcumenism would begin to be felt in the communist world, too.

Among the hieromartyrs of this period was Hieromonk Joseph Antoniou,whose biography as a True Orthodox priest is very illustrative of thesufferings of that period. Fr. Joseph joined the True Orthodox Church fromthe State Church in 1933, and was assigned to the parish in Carystos on theisland of Euboea. He immediately came into conflict with the fierceMetropolitan Panteleimon of Carystia and Skyros, who had already shownhis antipathy to the True Orthodox by throwing the 80-year-old Fr. GeorgeAntoniou into prison in Chalkis, where he died. Fr. Joseph’s vigorousmissionary activity, combined with his charity and healing gifts, onlyincreased the wrath of the new calendarist hierarch, who succeeded in gettingFr. Joseph’s church sealed. Once Fr. Joseph, like a new John the Baptist,publicly denounced the metropolitan for celebrating an uncanonical marriageand having no pity on the couple who would suffer as a result (two yearslater, they were burned to death in a car accident). Finally, Fr. Joseph had toflee in order to escape arrest, and was assigned to another parish inDombrana, near Thebes.

On August 4, 1936 the democratic regime was replaced by a royaldictatorship with John Metaxas as Prime Minister. Metaxas was very liberal inrelation to the True Orthodox, but in 1938 the Minister of Public Order, eggedon by Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos, gave an order for the arrest ofTrue Orthodox priests and the sealing of their churches. Although this orderwas soon repealed, Metropolitan Panteleimon used it to urge the authoritiesin Thebes to arrest Fr. Joseph and seal his churches. Fr. Joseph was cast intoprison in Chalkis, deposed and forcibly shaved. On his release he was sent byMetropolitan Germanus to Xylocastron, near Corinth. Once installed inXylocastron, he brought his parents there and continued his apostolic activity.

During the German occupation, communist guerillas entered the area andoccupied several of the villages. Fr. Joseph fearlessly denounced their falseteaching and terrible cruelties against the people. Two or three times theywarned Fr. Joseph to stop speaking against them. But he replied: “You arewaging the anti-Christian communist struggle, but I am waging the oppositestruggle, the Christian struggle.” Soon the decision was taken by thecommunists to execute the troublesome priest.

Shortly after Pascha, 1944, an unknown old man entered the church whereFr. Joseph was serving, and told him that throughout the service he had seenblood flowing from under this cassock. From that time, Fr. Joseph preparedhimself for martyrdom. Attacks on priests were increasing at this time. Onlythree months before Fr. Joseph was killed, he invited Bishop Germanus of theCyclades to baptize the son of his spiritual son John Motsis. The localcommunist chief ordered the bishop to leave immediately.

64

On July 20 Fr. Joseph celebrated the Liturgy in the village of Laliotis. Thenthe communists entered the house where he was staying, arrested him andthrew him into prison, where he was tortured. On July 22, he was taken out ofprison with another young man by three guerillas. On seeing the youth of theexecutioners, Fr. Joseph sadly shook his head and urged them not to committhe crime. The communists forced their victims to dig their own graves, killedthe young man, and then turned to Fr. Joseph.

He was allowed to sing his own funeral service. Then one thrust a knifeinto his back, but the blade broke. While another knife was being fetched, theexecutioners smoked and watched Fr. Joseph’s death agony. He said: “I willbe the last victim of this knife, but the one who kills me will be the first to diefrom this knife.” After killing the martyr, as the executioners were returning,they quarrelled and the one who had killed Fr. Joseph was killed by hiscomrades, while the first one was later executed by the Germans…

In September, 1945, Fr. Joseph’s father and brother, with the help of hisdonkey, found and exhumed his body. It was fragrant. A heavenly light wasoften seen over the tomb of the hieromartyr during the evenings.146

The divisions among the Greek Old Calendarists remained unhealed. In1942 Metropolitans Germanus and Chrysostom invited Bishops Matthew andGermanus to talks in order to heal their division. On January 27, 1942 BishopsMatthew and Germanus replied, refusing to meet unless the metropolitansagreed beforehand: “that the Church of Greece has become schismaticthrough the acceptance of the papist calendar; that its sacraments cannot bevalid; that its chrism does not have sanctifying grace; and that the children ofthe heterodox, on coming to the Orthodox church, must be chrismated again”.If the metropolitans agreed to these conditions, they said, “then our unity willfollow automatically without sessions or discussions”. But the twometropolitans rejected this suggestion.147

To make things worse, in 1942 Metropolitan Germanus retired fromleadership of the Sacred Struggle, and then, according to one version ofevents, applied for a review of the newcalendarists’ decision to defrock himfrom their synodical court. Since no document proving MetropolitanGermanus’ application to the newcalendarists has been found, some Florinitesbelieve that it was a newcalendarist forgery designed to create furtherdivisions in the Old Calendarist ranks.148 In any case, he died in 1944 beforeany decision was made. So he died as an Old Calendarist bishop.

146 The above account is taken from Metropolitan Calliopius of Pentapolis, Saint Joseph deDesphina (St. Joseph of Desphina), Lavardac: Orthodox Monastery of St. Michael, 1988 (F).147 Fr. Andrew Sidniev, Florinskij raskol in Tserkvi IPKh Gretsii (The Florinite Schism and theChurch of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 35-36.148 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 48.

65

Nevertheless, the new calendarists buried him with episcopal honours.149 Toadd to the distress of the True Orthodox, a division took place betweenBishops Germanus and Matthew in 1943.150

However, in 1945 Bishops Christopher and Polycarp again broke with theState Church and were received by Metropolitan Chrysostom on July 13. So atthe end of the war the True Orthodox were divided into three groups:Metropolitan Chrysostom with Bishops Christopher and Polycarp, BishopGermanus of the Cyclades, and Bishop Matthew of Bresthena.

The Soviet Offensive: (1) Inside the USSR

“The Underground or Catacomb Church in Soviet Russia underwent herhardest trials after February 4th, 1945, that is, after the enthronement of theSoviet Patriarch Alexis. Those who did not recognize him were sentenced tonew terms of imprisonment and were sometimes shot. Those who didrecognize him and gave their signature to that effect were often liberatedbefore their terms expired and received appointments… All secret priestsdetected in the Soviet zone of Germany were shot.”151

Commenting on these words, M.V. Shkarovsky writes: “The given fact ispartly confirmed by documents in the archives of the security police. In 1944-45 in the camps a whole series of cases on counter-revolutionaryorganizations was fabricated. In these, many clergmen were sentenced to anincrease in their sentence or were shot.”152

149 Monk Antonios, op. cit., p. 73.150 The mutual accusations are summarized in Metropolitan Calliopius, Nobles et SaintsCombats, op. cit., p. 150, note 8: “a) Bishop Matthew accused Bishop Germanos of celebratingthe mysteries for the new calendarists, of recruiting priests who were strangers to thestruggle, of changing the typicon, of behaving in an inconceivable manner towards hispriests, of speaking against the Mother of God….

“b) Bishop Germanos accused Bishop Matthew of having published books on impioussubjects and from apocryphal sources, like On the subject of the descent of the gifts of the Lord,and The Lord did some miracles by prayer. He reproached him for attaching a certain credence tothe demons who made him publish ‘The Ecstasies of Vasiliki Kyriazis’, who was possessed bythe devil. He could not accept that he proclaimed himself to be a saint, that he called himself‘the only Orthodox and saved bishop’, that he would ascend onto the patriarchal throne ofConstantinople, that he no longer used the prayer, ‘Through the prayers of our HolyFathers…’ and that he deviated from the typicon, that he ordained ‘deaconesses’, that hepermitted monks to take confession (see the letter signed by the monks of the Monastery ofthe Archangels, Athikia, Corinth: Gideon, Akakios, Gerasimos, Hilarion, Cosmas, Artemios,Hierotheos, Jeremiah, Callistus, Nicodemus and Joseph).”

For more on the works of dubious Orthodoxy published by Bishop Matthew, see MonkAntonios, op. cit., pp. 27-34.151 I.M. Andreev (Andreevsky), "The Catacomb Church in the Russian Land", op. cit.152 Shkarovsky, Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ pri Staline i Khruscheve (The Russian OrthodoxChurch under Stalin and Khruschev), Moscow, 2005, p. 205 ®.

66

Towards the end of the war the NKVD GULAG administration made thefollowing decisions: “1. To enrol qualified agents from among the prisonerswho are churchmen and sectarians, ordering them to uncover the factsconcerning the anti-Soviet activity of these prisoners. 2. In the process of theagents’ work on the prisoners, to uncover their illegal links with those infreedom and coordinate the work of these links with the correspondingorgans of the NKVD.” As a result of these instructions, many catacomborganizations among the prisoners were liquidated. For example, “in theUkhtoizhemsky ITL an anti-Soviet group of churchmen prisoners wasliquidated. One of the leaders of this group, the priest Ushakov, composedprayers and distributed them among the prisoners. It turned out that he hadillegal links with a Bishop Galynsky [a Catacomb hierarch].”153

“An internal result of the Moscow council of 1945 that was positive for theSoviet regime was the fact that, thanks to the participation in it of the EasternPatriarchs, the appearance of ‘legitimacy’ and ‘canonicity’ had been given tothis Stalin-inspired undertaking, which led into error not only a part of theOrthodox clergy and hierarchy in the emigration [about which, more below],but also many of the True Orthodox Catacomb pastors in the USSR, whonaively did not suspect that there might have been any anti-canonical crimesat [the council].”154

“One of the first to recognise the new Soviet patriarch was the formerCatacomb Bishop Athanasius (Sakharov) of Kovrov. Together with hisspiritual father, Hieromonk Hierax, he distributed to his Catacomb clergy andflock his appeal concerning ‘the legality of the newly elected patriarch’ andthe supposed beginning in the country of ‘a regeneration of canonicalOrthodoxy’. Contrasting the ‘conciliar election’ of Patriarch Alexis to theunlawful usurpation of the power of the first hierarch by MetropolitanSergius (Stragorodsky), Bishop Athanasius affirmed that with the death of thelatter and ‘the canonical election as patriarch’ of Alexis (Simansky), thereasons leading to a schism in the Church had been automatically removed.This thought of Bishop Athanasius was also supported by the formerCatacomb Bishop Gabriel (Abalymov) and some others. Trusting the appealsof these archpastors, the affirmations of the Eastern Patriarchs and theMoscow patriarchate itself, many ‘non-commemorating’ priests (especially onthe formerly occupied territories) followed their example, agreed to come outof the underground and receive official registration. Soon the majority ofthem were retired as hierarchs of the MP, while those who dared to displaydisagreement were arrested by the NKVD and again sent to the concentrationcamps. On August 30, 1946, Bishop Athanasius was also arrested, and spent11 years in prison. When he was freed in 1957, Vladyka was frequentlysubjected to slander and oppression from the hierarchs of the MP, and was

153 Irina Osipova, Khotelos' by vsiekh poimenno nazvat' (I would like to call all of them by name),Moscow: Fond "Mir i Chelovek", 1993, pp. 161, 193 ®.154 Shumilo, op. cit.

67

not appointed to a see. Bishop Athanasius died in complete poverty onOctober 15, 1962 in the village of Petushki, Vladimir province.”155

Another leading catacombnik who returned to the patriarchate wasProtopriest Basil Veriuzhsky. But he continued to act as if his sympathiesremained with the True Church. Thus in April, 1951 the Leningrad head ofthe Council for the Affairs of the ROC, A.I. Kushnarev, wrote to the presidentof the Council with some irritation: “… Veriuzhsky, the former rector of thechurch of the ‘resurrection-on-the-blood’, was repressed in his time as aninveterate Josephite, and on returning to Leningrad did not serve even once,continuing to remain hostile to Soviet power and not wishing to take part inservices at which prayers are said for Soviet power. In spite of this, or out ofrespect for him, the patriarch supports Veriuzhsky in every way. In Moscowthey have given him the academic degree of doctor of theology, the first in theSoviet Union, and have ardently wanted to advance him to the rank ofprofessor in the Leningrad Theological Academy, and it is only thedisagreement of the authorities that has hindered this protection…”156

The Catacomb pastors who remained faithful to Orthodoxy were in a stillmore difficult position after than before the war. Those pastors who come intothe open during the German occupation, were again deprived of theirchurches and forced to go underground. “And again, as in the 30s,repressions were renewed against the clergy who did not accept the ‘Sovietchurch’. Thus in Moscow province alone, where there had been more than tenCatacomb pastors in 1941, by the beginning of 1945 general searches had beencarried out and all the clergy of the True Orthodox Church had been arrested.

“In the struggle with alternative underground Orthodox communities inthe U.S.S.R. special commissions were created by the NKVD and the Councilfor the Affairs of the ROC in the middle of the 40s. They were occupied inobserving, ferreting out and liquidating such groups. The special 5th

department created by the NKVD to administer church questions was calledjust that ‘liquidatory’. A report of the president of the Council for the Affairsof the ROC, G. Karpov, to the deputy president of the Sovnarkom of theUSSR, V. Molotov, on October 5, 1944 witnesses to serious anxiety inconnection with the activation and spread of the influence of the CatacombChurch, and to measures undertaken by the government. It said: ‘… In theregions with an insignificant number of functional churches, and in the areaswhere there are no churches, there has been a mass spread of group servicesin the houses of believers or under the open sky – in cemeteries, by thebuilding of the church, with hundreds of worshippers. Moreover, in thesecases believers invite unregistered clergy to carry out the rites. In a series ofcases such services are carried out systematically… To a significant extent theactivists of these unregistered church groups, and the clergy that belong to

155 Shumilo, op. cit.156 TsKhSD, f. 5, op. 16, d. 650, l. 18; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 11.

68

them, are hostile to the legal patriarchal Orthodox church, condemning thelatter for its loyal attitude to Soviet power… The large numbers of believingfanatics under the influence of these groups are sharply different in theirattitudes from the [pro-Soviet] clergy of the legal church. This situation resultsin all kinds of recidivism, in a significant resurgence of religious feelings inthe form of the so-called ‘renewal’ of icons, the spread of ‘holy’ letters, thecarrying out of prayer services in fields by wells, various prophesyings, andalso agitation about the persecution of religion and the church in the USSR.’Noting the ineffectiveness of violent measures, since ‘believers seek for thesatisfaction of their religious demands in the undergrounds, constructing‘forest’, ‘cave’ and ‘catacomb’ churches,’ General Karpov makes a Jesuiticalsuggestion for the struggle with, and establishing control over, the believers:‘… With the aim of struggling against the illegal church groups where theyhave assumed large proportions, [I suggest that we] proceed to broaden thenet of functioning churches up to two or three per region, not refraining fromincreasing the opening of churches also in the provinces, and in areas with asignificant number of functioning churches, and in those regions where thereare none,’ he says in his report.

“Having a vivid example in Nazi Germany, which obtained loyal attitudesand a lowering of the resistance of the local population on the occupiedterritories, the Soviet regime, besides convening a council and electing apatriarch, decided on a temporary weakening of repressions and offeredsignificant freedom to religious (external-ritual) activity. Striving, as hasalready been noted, to keep under its control the activity of believers and toweaken the activity of the alternative underground Orthodox communitiesthat had grown in number by the middle of the 40s, in many regions of thecountry they began again to open churches, whose clergy were obliged toinform the local departments of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC or theNKVD, which had been transformed in March, 1946 into the MGB, about allthe details of church-parish life.

“Only in this context can we explain the sharp rise across the country in theopening of churches that had been recently closed by the Soviets. Therefore, ifin the first years of its existence (1943-1944) the Council for the Affairs of theROC unwillingly permitted the opening of churches – which we can see in theone example of Gorky (Nizhni-Novgorod) province, where out of 212petitions by 1945 only 14 had been satisfied (moreover, in January, 1945 only22 churches were functioning in the whole of the province, while 1011 werenot functioning) – then already in 1946-1948 the picture changes sharply. As isnoted in the protocols of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC on March 17,1947, all 64 of the petitions reviewed were satisfied, while in the protocol forMay 20, 1947 62 petitions reviewed on that day are said to have been satisfied.

69

Thus from 1944 to 1947 inclusive, 1270 churches were handed over to the MPon the territory of the RSFSR.157

“As was to be expected, thanks to the massive arrests of priest and activeparishioners of the Catacomb Church and the opening of churches for the MP,the government succeeded in obtaining a reduction in the number of‘headless underground groups’, the passive members of which began to turnto the legal clergy, while the ‘stubborn fanatics’ ‘isolated themselves’ from theexternal world. Besides this, for the more successful ferreting out of the illegalcommunities of the Catacomb Church the MP, too, was drawn in, beginning a‘struggle with sectarianism’ with the cooperation of the MGB and the Councilfor the Affairs of the ROC. Many instances are known in which monks orpriests of the MP, recruited by the MGB, were sent into catacombcommunities and informed against their members, in connection with whichthe most active among them were arrested. The creation of such a system ofinforming was not slow in producing the results that the regime needed:already by the middle of the 50s Soviet state security had succeeded inrevealing and ‘dissolving’ more than 50% of the Catacomb communities andmonasteries in the USSR, thereby stopping both the growth in numbers andthe influence of the Catacomb Church on the population.”158

Only in the central regions of Tambov, Lipetsk, Tula, Ryazan andVoronezh was there a certain increase in catacomb activity; many youngpeople took leading positions in the movement.159 Moreover, in the 1950sthere were still quite a large number of wandering catacomb priests and a fewholy bishops, such as Anthony (Galynsky), Peter (Ladygin) and Barnabas(Belyaev).160

157 According to figures of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC, on June 1, 1945, there were10342 functioning churches in the MP, including 6072 in Ukraine and 2297 in Russian. In thesame year 104 monasteries were functioning, including 22 in Transcarpathia, in which therelived 4632 monastics (M. Shkarovsky, in Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 87-88).158 Shumilo, op. cit. As Archbishop Lazarus (Zhurbenko) said: “The catacomb believers fearedthe Moscow Patriarchate priests even more than the police. Whenever a priest came for somereason or other, he was met by a feeling of dread. The catacomb people would say, ‘A reddetective has come.’ He was sent deliberately, and he was obliged to report everything to theauthorities. Not infrequently, hierarchs and priests told the people outright, directly from theambon, ‘Look around, Orthodox people. There are those who do not come to church. Findout who they are and report to us; these are enemies of the Soviet regime who stand in theway of the building of Socialism.’ We were very much afraid of these sergianist-orientedpriests.” ("Out from the Catacombs", Orthodox America, vol. X, № 10 (100), June, 1990, pp. 5-6)159 Shkvarovsky, Iosiflianstvo, op. cit., pp. 192-197. Thus in November, 1948 the head of theMGB in Tula district noted that 30 Orthodox priests who did not recognize the MoscowPatriarchate were operating in the district. In 1949 the head of the Council for the affairs ofthe Orthodoxy Church, G. Karpov, noted that in 1948 there were 175 illegal prayer houses inRyazan province, which number had risen to 190 in 1949. These were served by about 200clergy (Shkarovsky, Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ pri Staline i Khruscheve, Moscow, 2005, pp.255-256).160 On Bishop Peter, see "Kratkoe opisanie biografii menia nedostojnago skhiepiskopa PetraLadygina" (A Short Description of the Biography of Me, the Unworthy Schema-Bishop Peter

70

However, a new wave of persecution in the early 1950s sharply reducedthe numbers of Catacomb Christians in freedom. And so they retreateddeeper and deeper into the catacombs, fearing false brethren and abandoningall hope of influencing the broad masses of the people in the near future.

The sufferings of the Catacomb priests and believers is illustrated by thelife of Fr. Nicetas from Vyatka province: “Can a man living in freedom standwhat a hunted man experiences…? It is hard for us to understand now howreal and terrible that threat was. 40 people suffered for Fr. Nicetas at one time.Batyushka went from place to place, they couldn’t catch him, so they began toarrest his spiritual children. One woman was arrested just for giving himsome cream. It seems that in her simplicity she didn’t think of hiding thatfrom the persecutors. They tortured those whom they arrested, beat them,demanding the addresses where batyushka was hiding.

“Among those arrested was Matushka Catherine Golovanova. She wasarrested twice. The first time they came and tried to torture her to revealwhere Fr. Nicetas was; two policemen dressed in civil clothes took her to thehouse which they had under surveillance – an elderly man and his wife wereliving there. On seeing matushka, they rejoiced, and the wife, thinking thatmatushka was accompanied by her own people, started to talk joyfully.Matushka couldn’t stop her because the police were careful that she not giveher any sign. The woman gave away the secret of Fr. Nicetas’ whereabouts: ‘OMatushka, dear one, how are you? You know, we accompanied Fr. Nicetaslike this: we hung a bag full of shoes on him and he went…’ Matushka finallysucceeded in winking at her, the woman stopped short. ‘Well, why have youstopped?’ asked the searchers. ‘I remember nothing…’ ‘We’ll lean on you now– you’ll remember.’ They took off their outer clothing, under which, as undera sheep skin, was the inner wolf – policeman’s uniforms and guns. But it wasalready late, and the exhausted police wanted to go to sleep. One was dozingat the table, the other was at the threshold – he was evidently guarding thedoor to prevent matushka running away. Matushka waited and waited, thenshe opened a window and ran away. She was on the run for half a year, andthen they arrested her again. ‘Well, then,” they said, “how did you run away?’‘How? Well, they were sleeping and I thought: why should I simply sit here, Iopened the window and left.’ ‘You did well,’ they said. But now they didn’tdoze. They condemned all forty at one go (according to another source –thirty at the beginning). Matushka Golovanova was the chief culprit. Theyreally gave it to her at the interrogation: many years later Matushka S. sawscars from the interrogations on her back.

Ladygin); Tserkovnaia Zhizn' (Church Life), № № 7-8, July-August, 1985. On Bishop Barnabas,see V. Moss "Holy Hieroconfessor Barnabas of Pechersk", Orthodox Life, January-February,1995.

71

“They tortured them so much that some of them couldn’t stand it andrevealed the addresses where they could find Fr. Nicetas; but it seems that thepursuers had so despaired of catching Fr. Nicetas that they didn’t believethem even when they told them the truth.

“At the trial one woman in her simplicity said: ‘If you let me go, I’ll go toFr. Nicetas again the same day.’ Not believing her, they said: ‘We’ve beenlooking for him for so many years without finding him, and you’ll find wherehe is in one day?!’

“They gave Fr. Nicetas’ parishioners sentences of many years in length.Matushka Golovanova was given twelve years, two of them in a lock-up…

“While Fr. Nicetas’ spiritual children were going to suffer, he himself hadanother thirty years of suffering and wanderings ahead of him...”161

Many Catacomb Christians were thrown out of their homes and forced tolive in dug-outs eating grass and roots. Heavy extra taxes were imposed onthem and they worked on dangerous sites. In the war they had refused to jointhe Red Army, and after the war they sometimes refused even to useelectricity and radio, considering it to be “a gift of the Antichrist”. Forrefusing to allow their children to be taught Marxism or join the pioneer andkomsomol movements, they often had them taken away from them.162

The Soviet Offensive: (2) Outside the USSR

“Soon after the council [of January, 1945], on April 10, 1945, Stalinpersonally met Simansky [Patriarch Alexis]. At the meeting, besides Stalin,there took part the people’s commissar for foreign affairs V.M. Molotov, andfrom the MP [NKVD agent] Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich), who soonbecame president of the newly created Department of External (i.e.international) Church Affairs (OVTsS), and Protopriest N. Kolchitsky –chancellor of the MP, in charge of questions of international relations. This ishow Patriarch Alexis later recalled this meeting: ‘… Full of happiness atseeing face to face him whose name alone is pronounced with love not only inevery corner of our country, but also in all the freedom-loving and peace-loving countries, we expressed our gratitude to Joseph Vissarionovich… Thediscussion was a completely unforced conversation of a father with hischildren.’ As V. Alexeev affirms, citing the correspondence between[Patriarch Alexis] Simansky and G. Karpov, at the meeting ‘besides discussingintra-ecclesiastical problems, the conversation first of all concerned the tasksof the Russian Orthodox Church in the field of international relations… The

161 “I vrata adovy ne odoleiut ee…” (And the Gates of Hell will not Prevail against her),Suzdal’skie Eparkhial’nie Vedomosti (Suzdal Diocesan News), № 4, June-July, 1998, pp. 32-40 ®.162 Bishop Ambrose (von Sievers), "Gosudarstvo i 'katakomby'" (The State and the‘Catacombs’), in Filatov, op. cit., pp. 105, 111 ®

72

Church, according to Stalin’s conception, had to play a significant role infacilitating the international contacts of the USSR, using its own channels’.Soon after this meeting, on May 28, 1945, Patriarch Alexis unexpectedly set offon a ‘pilgrimage’ to the Middle East, where he met not only prominentreligious personalities, but also the heads of governments and otherinfluential politicians…”163

During his trip to the Middle East, Patriarch Alexis intervened in the Greekcivil war by calling on the Greek people to support the Communists and rejectthe Royalists and British Imperialists (Stalin adopted a more neutral stance).In Jerusalem he tried to persuade the ROCOR communities to come under hisomophorion. But the head of ROCOR’s Spiritual Mission, ArchimandriteAnthony (the future Archbishop of Los Angeles) firmly rejected his advances.With the agreement of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the patriarch was allowedto visit the convents on Eleon and Gethsemane. The hierarchs, surrounded byEnglish police and Russian KGB agents, entered the church on Eleon just asthe nuns were singing: “Blessed is the man walketh not in the counsel [sovietin Slavonic] of the ungodly”. None of the nuns in either of the convents askedfor the hierarchs’ blessing. The patriarch was annoyed, but was heard to way:“What discipline Archimandrite Anthony has!”164

Three years later, the Soviets, supported by the new Israeli government,forcibly seized some ROCOR churches, injuring some monastics. OnDecember 1, 1948, the military governor of Jerusalem presented toHierodeacon Methodius, the representative of Archimandrite Anthony, ademand that he hand over the keys of the Mission’s properties to therepresentatives of the MP who had arrived from Moscow. “This note waspresented to Fr. Methodius by the representatives of the MP, who wereaccompanied by a group of strong young men in uniform from the Sovietembassy and several observers from the Israeli government. Fr. Methodiusrefused outright to hand over the keys of the church that had been entrustedto him. Then the young men in uniform surrounded the clergyman and beganto beat him. The Israeli observers did not take part in the beating, but did notdefend him either. Might took its toll: beaten to the point of unconsciousness,Fr. Methodius was thrown into a ditch, the keys were taken from his belt, andthe ‘transfer of property’ took place. It should be noted that a significant partof the property handed over by the Israeli authorities supposedly into thepossession of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1948 was later sold to theIsraeli government by the Soviet authorities in 1964.”165

163 Shumilo, op. cit.164 N. Talberg, “Sviataia Rus’ na Sviatoj Zemle” (Holy Rus’ on the Holy Land), PravoslavnaiaRus’ (Orthodox Russia), № 16, 1958, p. 8; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 87.165 Protopriest Victor Potapov; RPZTs i sud’by russkoj Palestiny” (ROCOR and the destiniesof Russian Palestine); “How ROCOR lost Jerusalem”, Vertograd-Inform, № 20, October, 2000,pp. 23-36 ®.

73

“After visiting the countries of the Middle East, Metropolitan Nicholas,who had accompanied the Soviet patriarch, set off at the end of June forEngland, where he was received at Buckingham palace by King George VI.Metropolitan Nicholas made a successful attempt to exert political influenceon the king with the aim of forming a ‘democratic image’ for the totalitarianregime of Stalin in British government circles…”166

Metropolitan Nicholas “sounded out the ground for the organization ofparishes of the Moscow Patriarchate in London and the participation of theAnglicans in the planned World Conference of Christian Churches inMoscow. In the course of the visit the archbishop of York issued some anti-catholic declarations, calling the Vatican the common enemy of Orthodoxyand Anglicanism. This gave G. Karpov an excuse, in his report to the CentralCommittee of the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to draw theconclusion that ‘the Anglican church, like the Russian Orthodox church, has anegative attitude towards the Vatican and is ready to take part inundertakings directed against the Vatican, although it has so far adopted apassive position in this matter’ (RTsKhIDNI, f.17, op. 125, d. 407, l. 37).”167

Metropolitan Nicholas then went to Paris, where his propaganda was sosuccessful that a law on Soviet passports was passed (on June 14, 1946), afterwhich more than 3000 Russians living in France hurried to the Soviet embassyto take their passports.168 In September, 1945 75 Eulogian parishes wereunited with the MP. The question of Eulogius’ ban, placed on him by the MP15 years earlier, was not even discussed, and Nicholas and Eulogius

166 Shumilo, op. cit167 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 86, 97. However, the Russian community in Londonremained unitedly loyal to ROCOR for time being. It was only when the French-Russianmonk Anthony (Bloom) arrived as Orthodox chaplain for the Fellowship of SS. Alban andSergius that a division began. In 1950 Fr. Anthony was made vicar of the newly created MPparish. In 1957 he was consecrated to the episcopate. In 1963 he was appointed Exarch of theMP in Western Europe, and n 1966 – Metropolitan.

“Archimandrite Nicholas (Gibbs), former teacher of English to the children of the Tsar-Martyr, who followed the Royal family to Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg, moved from ROCOR tothe Moscow Patriarchate. This move was aided by conversations with Metropolitan Nicholas(Yarushevich), who was then visiting England. Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) recalls:‘Metropolitan Nicholas produced the most powerful impression on Archimandrite Nicholas(Gibbs); he healed his mind and was under the influence of his attractive personality,although because of his extremely suspicious character and as an ‘inveterate Englishman’ hewas somewhat cautious in relatin to him. He was disturbed by the ‘peace’ speeches ofMetropolitan Nicholas and their extremely sharp attacks on the western world. I objected tohim (and this was my sincere conviction) that it was not necessary to attach any significanceto these ‘peace’ speeches, since they were said under duress, and he was doing this for thegood of the Church and as it were in exchange for these privileges and relaxations whichStalin would undoubtedly provide the Church in the post-war years. I have to admit that Ihardly read Metropolitan Nicholas’ political speeches on the pages of the Journal of theMoscow Patriarchate, since I found them of little interest. But I was sorry because of the harmthey brought to the good name of the Russian Orthodox church in the West and among ourecclesiastical schismatics’” (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 98).168 Soldatov, op. cit., p. 14.

74

concelebrated in the church of St. Alexander Nevsky. On September 11 theMP decreed that Metropolitan Eulogius should be exarch of these parishes.However, on December 25, 1945 the Soviet deputy foreign minister V.Dekanozov wrote to G. Karpov: “The successes of Nicholas of Krutitsa havenot been established and could easily be destroyed. Comrade Bogomolov (theambassador in France) thinks that the sending of constant representatives ofthe MP to Paris should be speeded up and the first successes of Nicholasconfirmed, otherwise the Anglo-Americans will seize the foreign Orthodoxorganizations into their hands and turn them into a weapon against us”(GARF, f. 6991, op. 1, d. 65, l. 452). Metropolitan Eulogius twice asked theEcumenical Patriarch to allow him to return to the MP, but no reply ensued,and he remained dependent on Constantinople, by whom he was also namedexarch.169 His successor, Archbishop Vladimir (Tikhonitsky), supported by hisflock, decided in October, 1946 to remain with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.170

In September, 1945 ROCOR’s Metropolitan Seraphim (Lukyanov) ofWestern Europe joined Moscow, and after the death of Metropolitan Eulogiuswas raised to the rank of patriarchal exarch. However, his Paris flock did notaccept him, as a consequence of which he returned to ROCOR, but then againreturned to the MP, where he died as metropolitan of Odessa. In one of hisletters abroad Metropolitan Seraphim wrote that he was constantly watchedby a “nanny”.171

And so Shumilo is quite justified in writing: “It was precisely thanks to thelying pro-Soviet propaganda of the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate thattens of thousands of émigrés, among whom were quite a few clergy and evenbishops, believing in the spectre of freedom, began to return to the U.S.S.R. atthe end of the Second World War, where the Soviet concentration camps andprisons were waiting for them... These tragic pages of the history of ourFatherland have been sealed by rivers of innocent blood on all succeedinggenerations. And to a great degree the blame for this, for the tens ofthousands of destroyed lives and crippled destinies, lies on the first Sovietpatriarch Sergius Stragorodsky and his church, who by deed and word servedthe God-fighting Soviet totalitarian system…”172

On October 18, 1945 Metropolitan Gregory of Leningrad visited Finland,and received the Konevets and Valaamo monasteries together with twoparishes in Helsinki into his jurisdiction. He also received written assurancesfrom the hierarchs of the Finnish Orthodox Church that they would soonreturn from Constantinople to Moscow.173

169 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 94.170 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 114-115.171 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 94-95.172 Shumilo, op. cit.173 M.V. Shkarovsky; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 95.

75

However, as Timo Siukonen writes, the MP finally had to admit defeat inits struggle to gain control over the Finnish Church. “The Winter War (1939-1940) and the Continuation War (1941-1944) decisively changed the positionof the Finnish Orthodox Church. The loss of the ceded territories of Kareliameant that the church had to give up 90 per cent of its property, and 70 percent of its members were settled in different parts of Finland as displacedpersons. According to [Juha] Riikonen's thesis, the Moscow Patriarchate triedto dictate to Finland, as it did to other churches in the Soviet sphere of power.The Russian Orthodox Church was a part of the foreign relations apparatus ofthe Soviet Union.

“Initially the linkage was proposed by Moscow Patriarch Alexis afterVictory Day celebrations in May 1945. Gregory, the Metropolitan ofLeningrad and Novgorod, was sent to Kuopio for discussions. In thetalks Grigori demanded that the Finnish Orthodox Church put an endto its isolation, and that the lost daughter should to come back toits true father.

“In December 1945 Herman asked Alexis if the Finnish church would beallowed to keep the new calendar that it had adopted, as well as an autonomythat would be as extensive as what it enjoyed under Constantinople. Alexisgave a negative answer to both questions. After that, Herman suspendedpreparations for an extraordinary synod.

“’A survey of church members in 1946 reinforced the negative view of alinkage, and the matter was not discussed for years at meetings of theecclesiastical executive. ‘The pressure from Moscow was too direct, anddismissive of Finland's legal decision-making system’, Riikonen believes.

“According to the thesis, two different administrative cultures clashed inthe handling of the matter. Moscow's style clearly indicated a totalitarian wayof dealing with issues.

“The Finnish national government felt that choosing which patriarchate tobe a part of was a matter for the Finnish Orthodox Church to decide on itsown.

"’The Security Police saw the situation as problematic. It felt that the arrivalof Bishop Michael in Finland in 1954 was a clear sign of attempts to turnOrthodox congregations into a cover for Soviet espionage’, Riikonen notes.”

“The Finnish Orthodox Church was in a tight corner for more than tenyears, as the Moscow Patriarchate tried to coddle, connive, and command it tocome back to its fold - away from the Ecumenical Patriarchate ofConstantinople.

76

“The plans came to nothing. Archbishop Herman managed to steer thechurch in very difficult waters, and it was not until the spring of 1957 that theFinnish Orthodox Church was able to claim final victory in its struggle toremain independent.”174

However, the Soviet church had successes elsewhere, including thedefection of the ROCOR Bishop John of Urmia (Iran) to Moscow – but he laterrejoined ROCOR when he moved to America. This tug-of-war between theSoviet and American spheres of influence was felt everywhere. Its influencewas felt even on Mount Athos, where Archimandrite Justin of the Russianmonastery of St. Panteleimon petitioned to come under the MP.175

One of the few defeats suffered by the Soviets in the ecclesiastical arena atthis time was in Japan. On March 27, 1946 Bishop Nicholas (Ono) and hisconsistory petitioned to be received into the MP, and on April 3 PatriarchAlexis agreed. However, Japan was at that time under the military occupationof the American MacArthur, one of whose advisors, Colonel Boris Pasch, wasthe son of Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky), head of the AmericanMetropolia, who advised his son to hinder the union of the Japanese Churchwith Moscow. The son heeded his father, and the union did not take place atthis time. Two bishops sent by Moscow to further the union arrived atVladivostok, but were not allowed to sail to Japan by the Americanauthorities…176 The MP would have to wait until 1970 before it regainedcontrol of the Japanese Church…

American influence was also discernible in the decision of the Antiochianpatriarchate, under pressure from its rich American benefactors, to change tothe new calendar in 1948.177

Archbishop John of Shanghai

In China all the Russian bishops except one – the renowned wonderworkerJohn (Maximovich) of Shanghai – accepted Soviet passports and returned tothe MP. An eye-witness account of what took place is as follows. “Thepressure on Bishop John of Shanghai from the Soviets began even before theend of the Second World War, when the hierarchs of the Church Abroad inManchuria – Metropolitan Meletius, Archbishops Nestor and Demetrius andBishop Juvenaly sent letters to the Ruling Archbishop of Peking and ChinaVictor and to Bishop John of Shanghai informing them that on July 26, 1945they had recognized Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All Russia, andsuggesting that Archbishop Victor and Bishop John follow their example and

174 Siukonen, “Moscow Patriarchate pressured Finnish Orthodox Church after war”, HelsinginSanomat, September 28, 2007.175 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 102-103.176 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 106-107.177 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 141.

77

submit to the new Moscow Patriarch as to the lawful head of the RussianOrthodox Church.

“Not having any communication with the Synod Abroad beyond thebounds of China because of the military actions, and not knowing the truesituation of things in Europe, Bishop John wrote about the letter he hadreceived from the hierarchs in Harbin to his superior, Archbishop Victor inPeking, advising him to do nothing with regard to recognizing the Patriarchbefore the re-establishment of links with the Synod Abroad, while for the sakeof clarifying the question of the legality and canonical correctness orincorrectness of the choices of Patriarch Alexis Bishop John advisedArchbishop Victor to send him a short greeting on the occasion of hisconsecration and wait to see what the result would be. In this way he aimedto clarify whether the new Patriarch was a successor in God of the reposedand always recognized by the Church Abroad Patriarch Tikhon and thelocum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne Metropolitan Peter (of Krutitsa), orsimply a continuer of the politics of the dead Soviet Patriarch Sergius.

“In expectation of a clarification of this question and for the sake ofcalming that part of the Russian colony in Shanghai that had become pro-Soviet and demanded the recognition of the Moscow Patriarch, Bishop Johnissued a resolution (ukaz № 650 dated September 6 / August 24, 1945) on the temporary commemoration of Patriarch Alexis during the Divine servicesinstead of the until-then-existing commemoration of ‘the OrthodoxEpiscopate of the Russian Church’.”178

A little earlier, on July 31, Bishop John had written to Archbishop Victorthat he considered that “the raising of the name of the President of the SynodAbroad should be kept for the time being, since according to the 14th canon ofthe First-and-Second Canon of the Local Council [of Constantinople in 861] itis wrong wilfully to cease commemorating the name of one’s metropolitan.But the raising of the name of the Patriarch… should necessarily, inaccordance with your ukaz, be introduced throughout the diocese… At thegiven time no conditions of an ideological character have yet been imposedthat would serve as a reason for any change in our ecclesiasticaladministration abroad. If unacceptable conditions are again imposed in thefuture, the preservation of the present order of ecclesiastical administration

178 “Declaration”, sworn under oath on the Cross and the Holy Gospel by members of theRussian Emigration Association of Shanghai: G.K. Bolotov, P.I. Alexeenko, V.V. Krasovsky,N.N. Pleshanov, B.M. Krain, B.L. Kuper, M.A. Moshkin, 9 May, 1963, San Francisco ®. Seealso Monk Benjamin, “Arkhiepiskop Ioann (Maksimovich) kak okhranitel’ tserkovnagoimushchestva v Shankhae” (Archbishop John (Maximovich) as the Preserver of ChurchProperty in Shanghai), Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia), № 23, December 1/14, 1999, pp. 5- 7 ®.

78

will become the task of that ecclesiastical authority which will manage to becreated in dependence on external conditions.”179

This form of expression indicated that Bishop John was “hedging his bets”,ready to revoke his commemoration of the Moscow Patriarch if “unacceptableconditions of an ideological character” were to be imposed. Nevertheless, itcannot be denied that in this letter he temporarily recognized the canonicity ofthe Moscow Patriarch, declaring: “There is no canonical basis for suchindependence, since the lawfulness of the recognized – both by his own LocalChurch and by all the other Local Churches – Patriarch is not in doubt; andsince communication with said ecclesiastical authority (i.e., the Patriarch) hasnow become possible, therefore the ukaz (of Patriarch Tikhon) of November7, 1920 is not applicable.” In any case, in August Archbishop Victor sent atelegram to Patriarch Alexis asking for him and Bishop John to be receivedinto his jurisdiction; and from that time Bishop John and his priests started tocommemorate the patriarch.

However, Bishop John now began to be opposed by his flock. Thus whenhis priest, Fr. Peter tried to introduce the commemoration of the patriarch inthe convent ruled by Abbess Adriana (later of San Francisco), she forbadehim, and told him to go back to Bishop John and tell him that this was wrong.At about this time, on September 28, Bishop John received a telegram fromMetropolitan Anastasy in Geneva telling him that the Synod Abroad wasfunctioning, that the parents of Vladyka John were alive and living inGermany, and that he, the metropolitan, asked him to tell him about thesituation of the Church in China. 180 Bishop John immediately stoppedcommemorating the Soviet patriarch, and on September 29 he telegraphedArchbishop Victor that he had re-established contact with the Synod.

One of Bishop John’s spiritual children tells how he repented of his briefcommemoration of the Soviet patriarch every time he met another bishop,even down to the time he lived in the U.S.181

179 Archive of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, d. № 24; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 88-89; Archbishop Ambrose (von Sievers), “Proslavlenli u Boga Arkhiepiskop Ioann (Maksimovich)?” (Has Archbishop John (Maximovich) beenGlorified by God?), Russkoe Pravoslavie (Russian Orthodoxy), № 2 (16), 1999, p. 34 ®.180 “Declaration”, op. cit. According to the oral tradition of the brotherhood of the communityof St. Job, the telegram was sent by the superior of the community, Archimandrite Seraphim(Ivanov) in the name of the metropolitan, since contact with the latter had been lost becauseof the movement of the front line and the moving of the Synod from Belgrade to Munich andthen to Geneva. They say that on hearing of this ‘arbitrariness’, the metropolitan thanked Fr.Seraphim, but told him not to use his name again (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 95).181 Fr. Andrew Kencis, [email protected], December 3, 1998; Protopriests ValeryLukianov, Man of God: Saint John of San Francisco, Redding, Ca: Nikodemos OrthodoxPublication Society, 1991, p. 46. Matushka Anastasia Shatilova writes that she saw St. John’sletter of repentance to the Synod in the Synod archives (Church News, April, 1998, vol. 10, № 4 (71), p. 6).

79

“The next telegram came in the month of November from the United Statesfrom Archbishop Tikhon of Western America and San Francisco, in whichVladyka Tikhon informed him that Metropolitan Anastasy, ArchbishopsVitaly, Joasaph, Jerome and he had come into contact with each other andasked Bishop John to be with them and not to recognize the MoscowPatriarchate.

“This was all that Bishop John had to know, and when, at the beginning ofDecember, 1945 there arrived a letter from Archbishop Victor informing himthat he recognized Patriarch Alexis, Bishop John categorically refused toaccept the new Patriarch, in spite of terrible pressure, exhortations andthreats.”182

“On the evening of January 15, 1946 Archbishop Victor flew into Shanghaion an aeroplane from Peking and declared that he not only recognized thePatriarch, but had also become a Soviet citizen, having taken a passport of theUSSR.”183

“Archbishop Victor in vain tried to persuade, demanded and orderedBishop John to submit and recognize the Patriarch. Finally he came to theregular weekly meeting of the clergy, where he officially informed them of his

182 “Declaration”, op. cit. As an American publication put it: “By ukaz of Patriarch Alexis ofMoscow, dated 27 December, 1945, the Mission in China was re-united to the Russian MotherChurch and the break caused by the schismatic activities of the Karlovitz Synod was healed.But the perspectives for church work were somewhat clouded by the schism in 1946 of thevicar bishop of Shanghai, John Maximovitch, who took the lead in an opposition movementagainst the Patriarch and his ruling bishop at Peking” (One Church, vol. 12, №№ 9-10,September-October, 1958, p. 228).183 “Declaration”, op. cit. Protopresbyter Elias Wen writes: “After World War II, manyRussian émigrés in Shanghai, including some clergy, took Soviet passports. The head of themission, Archbishop Victor, was among those who did so, as was the senior rector of ourcathedral, Protopresbyter Michael Rogozhin. We, together with Vladyka John, did not followthis example. I remember that Vladyka John received an announcement from the Sovietconsulate that Archbishop Victor was coming to Shanghai. Vladyka John gathered togetherall of the clergy and announced that he would not meet with Vladyka Victor. We supportedhim in this.

“When Archbishop Victor arrived in Shanghai from Peking, eight Komsomol youthsaccompanied him as he walked towards the cathedral, where Father Michael had justfinished a moleben. We watched these events from the church house. The next day, ithappened I had to meet with Archbishop Victor. He called us ‘Johnnites’. ‘Yes, and do youknow why we favor Vladyka John?’ I asked him. ‘If you want to know, I will tell you. Whobrought Vladyka John here? You brought him to us. After Vladyka John’s arrival youyourself came here many times and said to him: ‘Vladyka John, I respect you, I recognizeyour high standards in life, and you are a good leader. Continue in this way. And if the clergydon’t listen to you, don’t hesitate to chastise them. Vladyka, didn’t you say these things?’‘Yes, I did,’ admitted Vladyka Victor. ‘That’s why we listen to him. And now you are againstVladyka John. You are now a Soviet citizen, and it is impossible to have any interaction withyou. I am Chinese; our clergy remained White, but you are Soviet ‘Red’. Do as you like…’”(Archpriest Peter Perekrestov, Man of God – Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco,Redding, Ca.: Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, 1994, pp. 64-65)

80

move to the Soviet church, and demanded that the church servers follow hisexample, and, having left Bishop John to preside, left the session. After aword from Bishop John calling on the clergy to remain faithful to the RussianChurch Abroad, the meeting passed a resolution suggested by him: to reportto Metropolitan Anastasy on the faithfulness of the clergy to the SynodAbroad and ask for instructions.

“There was no reply from the Synod for a very long time, and in thisperiod of about seven weeks terrible pressure was exerted on Bishop Johnfrom the Soviet authorities, Archbishop Victor, Metropolitan Nestor fromManchuria, from a large part of Russian society which had applied for Sovietpassports, from clergy who had moved to that side, and from others. Inwriting and orally, in the press, in clubs and at meetings the Soviet side triedto prove that the election of the patriarch had been completely legal, inaccordance with all the ecclesiastical canons, and suggested as proof theshowing of a documentary film on the election of the Patriarch of Moscowand All Russia.

“Bishop John agreed to see this film, so as personally to see and check thewhole procedure of the election, on condition that the film would be shown,not in the Soviet club, where all the Soviet pictures were being shown at thetime, but in the hall of a certain theatre.

“Most of the Shanghai clergy came to the showing, including Mitre-bearingProtopriest N. Kolchev, who is now living in San Francisco, Fr. I. Wen andothers.

“Before the beginning of the film, and without any warning, the orchestrabegan to play the Soviet hymn, and Bishop John immediately left the hall. Thearrangers of the showing immediately rushed after the hierarch, and, havingstopped him in the foyer, began to apologise and tried to persuade him tostay. Bishop John returned to the hall after the end of the hymn, and, havingseen the film, declared that in the so-called election of the Patriarch that hadbeen shown there was absolutely no legality, that the election had beenconducted in accordance with the classic Soviet model, in which only onecandidate was put forward, for whom the representative of every diocesewithout exception voted identically, reading out a stereotyped phrase, and inwhich there was nothing spiritual or canonical.

“This declaration by Bishop John still more enraged the Bolshevizedcircles, and the persecution of Vladyka and the clergy faithful to himintensified still more.

“On March 20, on the day of the patronal feast, Vladyka John was broughta telegram during the Liturgy. Since he never paid attention to anythingextraneous whatsoever during the Divine services, Bishop John hid the

81

telegram in his pocket without reading it, and opened it only after the service.In the telegram, which was signed by Metropolitan Anastasy, was written:

“’I recognize the resolution of the clergy under your presidency as correct.’

“This moral support received from the head of the Russian Church Abroadgave fresh strength to the clergy that remained faithful in order to continuetheir defence of the Orthodox churches from the claims and encroachment ofthe Bolsheviks.

“In the struggle Vladyka John had no rest, he literally flew from church tochurch, visiting schools and social organizations and giving sermons indefence of the Synod Abroad, calling on Russian people to be faithful, drivingout Soviet agitators from the Orthodox churches and White Russianorganizations.

“In this period Vladyka John was subjected to especially strong pressureand threats from both Archbishop Victor and from Metropolitan Nestor, whowas to be appointed Exarch of Patriarch Alexis in the Far East.

“Finally, on May 15, there arrived a telegram from Metropolitan Anastasyin Munich raising Bishop John to the rank of Archbishop with his immediatesubjection to the Hierarchical Synod. However, it was impossible to publicisethis until the official decree was received from the Synod.

“On Friday, May 31, 1946, Archbishop Victor again flew into Shanghai, butthis time, on his arrival, he was met by Soviet consular officials, and not byclergy and parishioners. On the same evening, Archbishop Victor proceededin state to the cathedral surrounded by consular officials and newly enlistedkomsomol members and occupied part of the cathedral residence with hissuite. That evening the Soviets staged a demonstration, trying to drive BishopJohn out of the cathedral and the cathedral residence.

“The next day, June 1, 1946, there arrived the long-awaited official decree[№ 108] on the raising of Bishop John to the rank of ruling Archbishop withimmediate submission to the Synod.

“The new ruling archbishop told Archbishop Victor of his appointmentand suggested that he leave the Cathedral House and leave the bounds of theShanghai diocese.

“Archbishop Victor, in his turn, gave Archbishop John on June 15 a decreeof the Moscow Patriarchate (№ 15 of June 13, 1946) on the appointment of Bishop Juvenal from Manchuria at the disposal of Archbishop Victor ‘to takethe place of the see of Bishop John of Shanghai, who does not recognize thejurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.’

82

“On June 16, 1946 this decree was published in the Soviet newspapers, andthere came the time of open battle for the physical possession of theCathedral, for the right to celebrate Divine services in it. Archbishop Victorbanned our clergy (Fr. Hieromonk Modest, Fr. Medvedev, Fr. K. Zanevsky)from serving in the cathedral, while Vladyka John himself served daily andordered them to serve with him, forbidding the Soviet priests from givingsermons and himself speaking for them, explaining to the worshippers whythe Orthodox Church Abroad did not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate.”184

On June 16 Archbishop John declared to the worshippers that he hadreceived the ukaz removing him from administration of the Shanghai diocese,but would not be obeying it: “I will submit to this ukaz only if they prove tome from the Holy Scriptures and the law of any country that the breaking ofoaths is a virtue while faithfulness to one’s oath is a serious sin.”185

“Feeling that the balance was all the time shifting towards ArchbishopJohn [four Shanghai priests join the MP, but 12 remained with ArchbishopJohn], the Soviet side began to resort to threats, bringing in komsomolmembers and debauchees, and once there was a serious threat thatArchbishop John and other anti-communist leaders of the White Russiancolony would be kidnapped and taken away by them onto a Soviet ship. Therepresentatives of our youth, without the knowledge of Vladyka, organized aguard which always followed in his footsteps without him knowing it andguarded him.

“When Archbishop Victor ‘removed’ Archbishop John with his decree andbanned him from serving, Vladyka John, instead of leaving the cathedral,went onto the ambon and told the worshippers that he was being removed byArchbishop Victor because he remained faithful to the oath he had given tothe Synod Abroad, which they had both sworn. And he went on to serve thewhole Liturgy in full!…

“In August, 1946 the Soviet clergy and Soviet citizens ceased to frequentthe cathedral church, and the Chinese National Government and the cityauthorities recognized Archbishop John as the head of the Shanghai Dioceseof the Orthodox Church Abroad.”186

184 “Declaration”, op. cit.185 Russkij Palomnik (The Russian Pilgrim), № 9, 1994, p. 16; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p.111.186 “Declaration”, op. cit. Jonah Seraphimovich Ma, a close disciple of Archbishop John whoworked for the Chinese Nationalist government, testifies: “I advised Archbishop John toapply for Chinese citizenship; finally he agreed. After processing all of the necessarydocuments for the Archbishop, I personally delivered to Archbishop John the government’sapproval. Only after the Archbishop acquired Chinese citizenship did the Soviets abandontheir plans to capture Archbishop John and take over the cathedral in Shanghai. Our beloved

83

On October 19, 1946 Archbishop Victor was imprisoned in Peking oncharges of participating in the anti-comintern union of North Korea and theRussian Fascist organizations, and also of cooperating with the Japaneseoccupation authorities. However, on October 24, through the intervention ofSoviet diplomats, he was released.

On November 26, 1947, in defiance of the Soviets, the Chinese governmentin Nanking confirmed Bishop John as head of the Russian Spiritual Mission inChina.187 But in 1948, as the communists came closer to power, ArchbishopJohn evacuated his flock of 6000 to the Philippines, and then to the UnitedStates. He himself left Shanghai on May 4, 1949. His refusal to join the Sovietsundoubtedly saved both the physical and the spiritual lives of himself and hisflock. Those 10,000 Russian Orthodox in Shanghai who accepted Sovietpassports and returned to the “Fatherland” were not so fortunate…188

On June 14, 1948, the MP’s Metropolitan Nestor of Manchuria and Harbinwas arrested – at the request of Soviet representatives. After being tortured byChinese interrogators, he was transferred to the Lubianka in Moscow. OnDecember 25 he was sentenced to 10 years in the camps for spying, forwriting The Shooting of the Moscow Kremlin and for carrying out pannikhidasfor the Royal Martyrs killed in Alapaevsk. He was released in 1956. 189

Archbishop John and the cathedral were saved.” (in Protopresbyter Valery Lukianov, “TheTruth concerning Vladyka John of Shanghai, the Wonderworkers: An Historical Inquirty”.187 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 116. “Only in 2003, in a book devoted to the niece ofVladyka Victor (Sviatin), Xenia Keping, were we given quite definitely to understand thatArchbishop Victor was killed in the Soviet ‘fatherland’. The reason for this was said to hisunwillingness to be reconciled with the pilfering of Russian Church property in China bySoviet officials, both state and patriarchal” (T.A. Bogdanova, A.K. Klementiev, “Put’Khailarskago Sviatitelia” (The Path of the Bishop of Hailar), Pravoslavnij Put’ (The OrthodoxWay), 2005, p. 62 ®).187 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 116.188 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 116. Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal writes: “Iremember the year 1956, the Dormition men’s monastery in Odessa, where I was anunwilling witness as there returned from the camps and prisons, having served their terms,those hierarchs who returned to Russia after the war so as to unite with the ‘Mother Church’at the call of Stalin’s government and the Moscow patriarchate: ‘the Homeland has forgivenyou, the Homeland calls you!’ In 1946 they trustingly entered the USSR, and were allimmediately captured and incarcerated for 10 years, while the ‘Mother Church’ was silent,not raising her voice in defence of those whom she had beckoned into the trap. In order to be‘re-established’ in their hierarchical rank, they had to accept and chant hymns to Sergianism,and accept the Soviet patriarch. And what then? Some of them ended their lives under housearrest, others in monastery prisons, while others soon departed for eternity.”(Nativity Epistle,2000/2001).189 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 1245-125. See also ”Tserkovnie Iudy” (Church Judases),Slovo (The Word), № 26, December 25, 1949; in von Sievers, “Bezobrazniki”, op. cit., p. 20; N.Larnikov, “I poshel Vladyka Nestor tem zhe putem…” (And Vladyka Nestor went along thesame path), http://listok.com/article54.htm ®.

84

More Soviet Councils

In 1948 the MP celebrated the 450th anniversary of its foundation. Thecelebrations were attended by representatives of the Ecumenical, Antiochian,Alexandrian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czechoslovak, Polish andGeorgian Churches. (The Georgian Church had been granted autocephaly byMoscow shortly after the Stalin-Sergius pact in 1943. This act was notrecognised by Constantinople until the 1990s.) Only Jerusalem and Cyprus,among the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, were not represented.

Immediately after the celebrations, a Church Council took place. Only theEast European Churches within Moscow’s orbit and Antioch attended; theChurches of Constantinople, Alexandria and Greece boycotted it, ostensiblyon the grounds that only Constantinople had the right to call such aconference, but more probably because they did not wish to involvethemselves in the inevitable adulations of Stalin.190 When KGB Colonel G.Karpov, head of the Department for the Affairs of the Russian OrthodoxChurch and the real master of ceremonies, learned that MetropolitanGermanus of Thyateira and Great Britain, the representative of theEcumenical Patriarchate, was not arriving in Moscow until after the workingdays of the Council, he said: “He is well-known to be an English spy”. Andabout Patriarch Maximus, who had given Metropolitan Germanus this order,he said: “he has long been ill with schizophrenia and must in the near futurego into retirement”. 191 This was no idle threat: the next year PatriarchMaximus was forced into retirement by his Synod on grounds of mentalillness, although he was completely sane.192 However, this was a mistake ofthe Kremlin politicians; for Maximus’ place on the ecumenical throne wastaken by the 33rd degree Mason Athenagoras, who arrived in Constantinoplefrom America on the private plane of the American President Truman…

The timing of the Council was clearly aimed at upstaging the First GeneralAssembly of the World Council of Churches which was also taking place inthat month. In line with Stalin’s foreign policy, the delegates denounced theWest and the Vatican and condemned the ecumenical movement. 193

Moscow’s hostility to the Vatican was determined especially by its desire toeliminate uniatism in Eastern Europe – that is, churches serving according tothe Eastern Orthodox rite but commemorating the Pope. A start had beenmade already towards the end of the war, when it was suggested to the uniateepiscopate in Western Ukraine that it simply “liquidate itself”. When all five

190 Bishop Ambrose of Methone, personal communication, November 5, 2005.191 RTsKhIDNI, f. 17, op. 132, d. 8, l. 30; Monk Benjamin, Letopis’ Tserkovnykh Sobytij (Chronicleof Church Events), http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis3.htm, vol. 3, p. 128 ®.192 Maximus was removed because he was an opponent of ecumenism. When they asked himin 1965 what had been the reason for his deposition, he replied: “It’s not worth commentingon how they deposed me.” (Agios Agathangelos Esphigmenites (St. Agathangelos of Esphigmenou),№ 138, July-August, 1993 (in Greek)).193 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 128-131.

85

uniate bishops refused, in April, 1945, they were arrested. Within a month aclearly Soviet-inspired “initiative movement” for unification with the MPheaded by Protopresbyter G. Kostelnikov appeared.194 By the spring of 1946997 out of 1270 uniate priests in Western Ukraine had joined this movement,on March 8-10 a uniate council of clergy and laity voted to join the Orthodoxchurch and annul the Brest unia with the Roman Catholic Church of 1596.Central Committee documents show that the whole procedure was controlledby the first secretary of the Ukrainian party, Nikita Khruschev, who in allsignificant details sought the sanction of Stalin.195

In October, 1948 the 1,250,000 uniates of Romania (The Romanian unia hadtaken place at Blaj in Transylvania in 1697) were united with the RomanianPatriarchate.196 Then, in April, 1950, a council took place at Prešov in Slovakiaattended by 820 delegates, at which it was agreed to revoke the Uzhgorodunia of 1649 and return to Orthodoxy. The “converted” uniates formed a new,East Slovakian diocese of the Czech Orthodox Church.197

However, as Metropolitan Tikhon of Omsk writes, the merger of theuniates into the MP harmed both the uniates and the MP. It infected the MP,which drew a large proportion of its clergy from the Western Ukraine, withthe false asceticism and mysticism of the Catholics. And the uniates, “onbeing merged into the unorthodox patriarchate, did not come to know thegrace-filled ‘taste of True Orthodoxy’. The fruits of this ‘union’ are wellknown to all today.”198

It is now known that all the decisions of the Moscow council of 1948 wereplanned a year and a half before by the Central Committee of the CommunistParty.199 Consequently it is not surprising to see from the hierarchs’ specialepistle that their motives were purely political: “The world is going through astormy time in which the irreconcilable differences between the Catholic andrationalist-Protestant West, on the one hand, and the Orthodox East, on theother, are clearly manifest… We servants of the Orthodox Church have beenpainfully impressed by the fact that those who are stirring up a new war arechildren of the Christian Catholic and Protestant world. We are deeplygrieved that from the stronghold of Catholicism, the Vatican, and the nest ofProtestantism, America, instead of the voice of peace and Christian love wehear blessing of a new war and hymns in praise of atomic bombs and such-

194 M.V. Shkarovsky; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 81.195 M.V. Shkarovsky; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 105-106.196 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 137-138.197 K.E. Skurat, Istoria Pomestnykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvej (A History of the Local OrthodoxChurches); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 2.198 Metropolitan Tikhon, “Tiazhkij Iudin grekh pered vsem Russkim narodom” (The terriblesin of Judas before the whole Russian people),http://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=779 ®.199 Documents in M. Shkarovskij, Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ i Sovietskoe Gosudarstvo s 1943po 1964 gg. (The Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet State from 1943 to 1964) ®.

86

like inventions, which are designed for the destruction of human life. AllChristians, regardless of nation and creed, cannot help blaming the Vaticanfor this policy. We fervently beseech the Chief Pastor, our Lord Jesus Christ,that He enlighten the Catholic hierarchy with the light of His Divine teachingand help it to realize the abyss of its sinful fall.”200

The most theological contribution to this council came from ArchbishopSeraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar (Bulgaria), formerly of ROCOR. He preparedthree reports: against the ecumenical movement, on the old and newcalendars, and on the Anglican hierarchy. Seraphim expressed a "particularopinion" on the calendar question, considering the council's resolution on thisquestion to have been inadequate. In his report against Ecumenism hestressed that the presence of Orthodox representatives at ecumenicalconferences, even as observers, constituted apostasy from Holy Orthodoxy.

Protopriest G. Razumovsky also spoke well: "The Russian OrthodoxChurch," he said, "had always taught and still teaches that Pentecost, or thedescent of the Holy Spirit, has already taken place and that the Christians donot have to wait for a new appearance of the Holy Spirit, but the gloriousSecond Coming of Jesus Christ. The diminution of the significance of thesingle sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the prophecy of a future 'third hour', inwhich the expected Kingdom of the Holy Spirit will be revealed ischaracteristic of the teaching of the Masons and the heretics; while the newlyrevealed prophecy of the expected Ecumenical Pentecost can be nothing otherthan an old echo of the false teaching of these deceived heretics." 201

On July 15, 1948 a feast in honour of the participants in the Council waslaid on by the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. About200 people were present. The representative of the Bulgarian Churchproposed a toast to Stalin for the communist Prime Minister of Bulgaria.Karpov declared that the guests had become personally convinced in Moscowthat the Russian Orthodox Church was completely free and independent ofthe State. Metropolitan Germanos of Thyateira praised Stalin and calledKarpov a minister who “aids the strengthening and flourishing of Orthodoxyin the Soviet Union”. Metropolitan Elias of the Lebanon said that it was onlythanks to Stalin that the flourishing of the Russian Orthodox Church had beenguaranteed throughout the world.202

200 Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), 1948, № 12, p. 6 ®; cited in Yakunin, “V sluzhenii k kul’tu (Moskovskaia Patriarkhia i kul’t lichnosti Stalina)” (Inthe Service of the Cult (the Moscow Patriarchate and Stalin’s Cult of Personality), in Furman,D.E., Fr. Mark Smirnov (eds.), Na puti k svobode sovesti (On the Path to Freedom of Conscience),Moscow: Progress, 1989, p. 197 ®.201 Archimandrite Charalampus Vasilopoulos, Oikoumenismos khoris maska (EcumenismUnmasked), Athens: Orthodoxos Typos, 1988, p. 122 (G).202 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 133.

87

In July, 1951 the heads of the Churches of Antioch, Russia, Georgia,Romania and Bulgaria gathered in Zagorsk and issued a purely politicalstatement in favour of “peace” and against the USA.203 The “theology ofpeace” – that is, the removal of all obstacles to the communist domination ofthe world – was becoming the major content of top-level ecclesiasticalmeetings in the eastern bloc. For the moment pro-communism was combinedwith anti-ecumenism (since the initiators of the ecumenical movement werethe Anglo-Saxons); but the time would shortly come when the communistmasters of the East European Churches would compel the patriarchs tochange course and embrace ecumenism – for the sake of giving their pro-communist message a wider audience and deeper penetration…

The World Council of Churches

In July, 1948, in Amsterdam, the union took place between the twoecumenical movements “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work” into a neworganization, the World Council of Churches. Being the only OrthodoxChurch that had not participated in the council of Moscow that condemnedecumenism, Constantinople was the only Orthodox jurisdiction besides theCypriot Church present at this essentially Protestant assembly.204 Moscowwas invited, but declined.

In his reply Metropolitan (and MGB agent) Nicholas of Krutitsa took theopportunity to berate his ecclesiastical opponents, expressing the hope thatthe World Council of Churches would not count as representatives of theRussian Orthodox Church either those Russian Orthodox believers who wereunder the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or the “schismatics”from the groups of Metropolitan Theodosius in America or MetropolitanAnastasy in Munich, who had nothing in common with the Russian OrthodoxChurch.205

In view of this, it is not surprising that ROCOR was not invited. She wouldin any case have declined because “we do not participate in the ecumenicalmovement”.206 This decision was in line with a gradual disillusion with theecumenical movement experienced in the inter-war years, culminating in the

203 Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), № 8, 1951; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, pp. 12-13.204 Macris, The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, Seattle: St. Nectarios Press, 1986,pp. 12-14.205 “The Moscow Patriarchate and the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches”, TheEcumenical Review, 12, Winter, 1949, pp. 188-189; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 133-134.206 Archive of the Hierarchical Synod, delo 5-48; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 133. Thisremark was made by the Synod of Bishops on February 21, 148 in response to a request fromProfessor M.V. Zyzykin that participate in the Amsterdam Congress (Anrew Psarev, AndreiPsarev, “The Development of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’s Attitude TowardOther Local Orthodox Churches”,http://www.sobor2006.com/printerfriendly2.php?id=119_0_3_0, p. 6).

88

words of the Second All-Diaspora Council in 1938: “Resolutions ofecumenical conferences often suffer from vagueness, diffusiveness, reticenceand a nuance of compromise. Sometimes they develop formulas in which thesame expressions may be interpreted differently.”207

A.V. Soldatov has chronicled the progressive weakening in the Orthodoxposition: “At the conference [of Faith and Order] in Geneva in 1920 the spiritof extreme Protestant liberalism gained the upper hand. It came to the pointthat when the Orthodox Metropolitan Stephen of Sophia noted in his report:‘The Church is only there where the hierarchy has apostolic succession, andwithout such a hierarchy there are only religious communities’, the majorityof the delegates of the conference left the hall as a sign of protest. At the nextconference on Faith and Order [in Lausanne] in 1927, victory again went tothe extreme left Protestants. The Orthodox delegation, experiencingpsychological pressure at this conference, was forced to issue the followingdeclaration: ‘in accordance with the views of the Orthodox Church, nocompromises in relation to the teaching of the faith and religious convictionscan be permitted. No Orthodox can hope that a reunion based on disputedformulae can be strong and positive… The Orthodox Church considers thatany union must be based exclusively on the teaching of the faith andconfession of the ancient undivided Church, on the seven EcumenicalCouncils and other decisions of the first eight centuries.’ But the numerousspeeches of the Orthodox explaining the teaching of the Church on the unityof the Church seemed only to still further increase the incomprehension orunwillingness to comprehend them on the part of the Protestant leaders ofEcumenism. This tendency was consistently pursued by the Protestants at theconferences in 1937 in Oxford and Edinburgh. Summing up this ‘dialogue’ atthe beginning of the century, Fr. Metrophanes Znosko-Borovsky remarks:‘The Orthodox delegates at Edinburgh were forced with sorrow to accept theexistence of basic, irreconcilable differences in viewpoint on many subjects offaith between the Orthodox East and the Protestant West.’

“After the Second World War, the World Council of Churches was created.It is necessary to point out that the movements ‘Faith and Order’ and ‘theChristian Council of Life and Work’ were viewed by their organizers aspreparatory stages in the seeking of possible modes of integration of ‘theChristian world’. The World Council of Churches differed from them inprinciple. It set out on the path of ‘practical Ecumenism’ for the first time inworld history, declaring that it was the embryo of a new type of universalchurch. The first, so to speak founding conference of the WCC in Amsterdamchose as its motto the words: ‘Human disorder and God’s house-building’. Atit, as Archbishop Vitaly remarks, ‘every effort was made to destroy theteaching on the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. The leadingtheological minds of the Protestant world made a series of reports at the

207 Quoted in Ludmilla Perepiolkina, Ecumenism – A Path to Perdition, St. Petersburg, 1999, p.13.

89

Amsterdam conference, in which they focussed with particular clarity thewhole depth of the dogmatic and theological disintegration of the Protestantfaith and, in particular, ecclesiology. The conclusion of the report of GustavAulen became the basic, single dogma of the organization being created: ‘TheChurch is as it were a synthesis of all churches.’ Another speaker, ClarenceCraig, somewhat deepened the arguments of his colleague with the help of asuggested variant translation of the word ‘catholic’ (or ‘conciliar’ in theSlavonic translation of the Symbol of Faith) as ‘integral’. But of particularinterest for us was the speech at this conference of the Orthodox priest, notedtheologian and Church historian [of the Ecumenical Patriarchate], Fr. GeorgesFlorovsky. Having noted that ‘the Bible, dogmatics, catechesis, Churchdiscipline, Liturgy, preaching and sacrament have become museum exhibits’,Fr. Georges concluded: ‘the only salvation in the work of reviving the Churchis in the ecumenical movement’. He affirmed that ‘the Church has not yetdefined herself, has not worked out her own theological school definition,does not have her own definition, has not yet recognized herself.’”208

According to the rules agreed in Amsterdam, an applicant to the WCCmust “recognize the essential interdependence of the churches, particularlythose of the same confession, and must practise constructive ecumenicalrelations with other churches within its country or region. This will normallymean that the church is a member of the national council of churches orsimilar body and of the regional ecumenical organisation." (Rules of the WCC)And article I of the WCC Constitution reads: "The World Council of Churchesis a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God andSaviour according to the scriptures (sic) and therefore seek to fulfil togethertheir common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and HolySpirit." And the Constitution also declares that the primary purpose of thefellowship of churches in the World Council of Churches is to call one anotherto “visible unity in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship, expressed inworship and common life in Christ, through witness and service to the world,and to advance towards that unity in order that the world may believe”.Further, according to Section II of the WCC Rules, entitled Responsibilities ofMembership, "Membership in the World Council of Churches signifiesfaithfulness to the Basis of the Council, fellowship in the Council,participation in the life and work of the Council and commitment to theecumenical movement as integral to the mission of the church.”

Acceptance of these terms clearly entailed a heretical Protestantecclesiology. In fact, as time went on, the WCC became the home of almostevery heresy, earning its home city of Amsterdam the description that theEnglish Catholic poet Andrew Marvell gave it in his poem, “The Character ofHolland” in 1653:

208 Soldatov, "Pravoslavie i Ekumenizm" (Orthodoxy and Ecumenism), Mirianin (Layman),July-August, 1992, p. 8 ®.

90

Hence Amsterdam, Turk-Christian-Pagan-Jew,Staple of Sects and Mint of Schism grew;

That Bank of Conscience, where not one so strangeOpinion but finds Credit, and ExchangeIn vain for Catholicks ourselves we bear;

The universal church is onely there.

Divisions in the Greek Church

During this period, while the Greek Old Calendarists increased innumbers, the divisions among them continued and intensified. MetropolitanChrysostom and his two fellow bishops continued to argue that the newcalendarists were potentially rather than actually schismatics. Moreover, in anarticle in the newspaper Eleutheria (Freedom) on November 14, 1945, they saidthat they would never consecrate bishops because the Old Calendarists didnot constitute a Church but a “keeper” against the innovations of the StateChurch: “We assure all the Church and State authorities that, having fullawareness that we are only simple keepers of an institution of Pan-Orthodoximportance as the old calendar is, and not representatives of a rebelliouschurch, we shall never and in no case whatsoever carry out ecclesiastical actssuch as the consecration of bishops”.209 At the same time, they issued twoencyclicals – on March 11 and July 12, 1946 – which forbade anyconcelebration with the new calendarists.

At about this time some Matthewites conceived the idea of persuadingBishop Matthew to ordain bishops on his own. Metropolitan Calliopius ofPentapolis writes: “The ‘consecrations’ by a single bishop were decided uponfor the beginning of November, 1944. Eugene Tombros [a married priest andthe chancellor of the Matthewite Church] and Mother Mariam [the abbess ofthe Monastery of Keratea] contrived to persuade the old man of Bresthena[Bishop Matthew] to proceed to carry out the consecrations on his own. Theyfirst proposed Hieromonk Basil Baltsakis. The project was scuppered thanksto the objections of the Fathers of the Monastery of the Transfiguration,notably Fathers Gregory, Climis, Xenophon and Eugene. Hieromonk AnthonyThanos, the abbot of the monastery (and later metropolitan of Attica) hadreceived Bishop Matthew’s declaration ‘that he would prefer to have hishands cut off rather than proceed to consecrations.’ Four years later, however,when the Fathers had left the monastery, Eugene Tombros and MotherMariam attained their end and Bishop Matthew proceeded to the consecrationof four bishops on his own…”210

209 Metropolitan Nicholas of Piraeus, Apantesis eis ton Theologon k. N. Kharisen (Reply to theTheologian Mr. N. Kharisen), Athens, February, 1974, pp. 6-7 (G).210 Metropolitan Calliopius, Nobles et Saints Combats des Vrais Chrétiens Orthodoxes de Grèce(Noble and Holy Struggles of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece), vol. I, Lavardac, p. 151, note11 (F). According to another, Matthewite source, on November 28, 1945, four senior priests ofthe Matthewite Church, including Archimandrite Acacius (Papas) and Archpriest EugeneTombros, implored Bishop Matthew to ordain bishops on his own, but he refused.

91

“In 1947,” writes Jelena Petrovic, Metropolitan Chrysostom “published his‘Memorandum for the Future Pan-Orthodox Council’, [in which] he wrote:‘The triumph of Christ's Church [in the USSR] has been achieved by thealmighty power of Christ, Who as his means and organ used the eminentleader Stalin and his glorious collaborators, politicians and generals. This is “achange wrought by the right hand of the Most High”.’ This was written in themiddle of the Greek civil war - as Bishop Matthew put it, "at a time when theaccursed and godless Communist Party of Greece (KKE) was shedding Greekblood. It is a panegyric to the arch-slaughterer of mankind. During the periodof 14 years [in which,] as they claim, they have partaken in the holy struggle,they haven't written even a single tiny article or booklet, nor have they evensaid in the church anything about godless communism; while we, foreseeingthe danger from the beginning, have been writing and confessing andpreaching against traitorous and anti-patriotic communism."211

This criticism was just. And yet Matthew was guilty of similar errors. Thusthe Matthewite organ Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon (Herald of the True OrthodoxChristians) for July, 1949 reported that he had sent his fervent prayers to thenewly-created antichristian State of Israel - which, to please its patron, theSoviet Union, promptly expelled the ROCOR monastics from the Goritskyconvent in Jerusalem and handed it over to the Moscow Patriarchate.212

On August 26, 1948, an assembly of Bishop Matthew’s Church made adecision which was on the face of it uncanonical, and which served to deepenthe divisions in the True Orthodox Church. They decided “that our mostReverend Bishop Matthew of Bresthena should proceed to the consecration ofnew bishops, insofar as the other pseudo-bishops of the True OrthodoxChristians neither understand nor confess Orthodoxy, nor unite with us, noreven agree to make consecrations. We grant him the authority to proceed bothto the election of people and to their immediate consecration, in accordancewith the divine and sacred canons and the opinions of our canon law experts,and in accordance with the practice of the whole Church of Christ, which hasaccepted, in case of necessity (as is the case today) such a dispensation, as wehave just heard from our Protosynkellos, Protopriest Eugene Tombros, who

211 Petrovic, Re: [True-Faith] HOCNA—2, 29/11/00, [email protected]. On December7, 1947 Patriarch Alexis of Moscow wrote to Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria complainingthat in the official organ of the State Church of Greece, Ekklesia (The Church) (№ 29-31,August 1, 1947), Metropolitan Chrysostom of Zacynthus had written that the SlavicChurches were as dangerous enemies of the Greek Churches as Papism, and that not oneOrthodox Church should cooperate with the Moscow Patriarchate (GARF, f. 6991, op. 2, d. 65,l. 79-85; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, pp. 120-121.212 Monk Antonios (Georgantas), Ekklesia G.O.Kh. Ellados, 1924-2004: 80 eti fotos kai skotous (TheChurch of the G.O.C. of Greece, 1924-2004: 80 years of light and darkness), Gortynia, Crete:Monastery of St. Nicodemus, 2004, pp. 54-55 (G).

92

explained the validity of the consecration of one Bishop by one Bishop inaccordance with the law of our Orthodox Church.”213

The reliance of the Matthewites on Fr. Eugene Tombros was, to say theleast, unfortunate. This married priest had joined the sacred struggle from thenew calendarists in 1936, and was defrocked by them in February, 1938. Butthen, in July, 1938, after one month in prison, he repented in a letter to thenew calendarist Bishop of Corfu, Alexander, and asked for the grace of thepriesthood to be restored to him, thereby recognizing the authority and themysteries of the new calendarist church. On his release from prison, however,he did not return to Bishop Alexander, but went to Athens, where, the nextyear, he was made Protosynkellos of the Church of Bishops Germanus andMatthew. In this post he did much by his slandering of Bishop Germanus tofoment the schism between Germanos and Matthew, after which he acquiredan unparalleled and fateful authority in the Matthewite Church.214 Such atraitor to the Old Calendarist Church was hardly in a position to makejudgements about the supposedly “pseudo-Orthodox” MetropolitansGermanus and Chrysostom. Nor could a group of priests led by Tombros“give authority” to Bishop Matthew to proceed to the election andconsecration of another bishop on his own.

In September, Bishop Matthew, after warning Metropolitan Chrysostomand Bishop Germanus of what he was about to do, consecrated the followingbishops: Spyridon of Trimithun (Cyprus), and then, with Spyridon,Demetrius of Thessalonica, Callistus of Corinth and Andrew of Patras.

On October 29, 1948 the three Florinite bishops Chrysostom, Christopherand Polycarp reacted angrily to “the indescribable impiety [single-handedconsecration] that makes Bishop Matthew guilty before God”, accusing him ofbeing a “false teacher” consecrating new bishops “without any ecclesiasticalnecessity, but only in order to fulfil his personal interests”. On December 20,Metropolitan Chrysostom wrote a similar letter to the Greek Ministry ofReligion that was published in Vradini.215

In December Archbishop Matthew replied as follows: “We have notproceeded to any coup d’état whatsoever, as the ordination of the newbishops has been maliciously characterised, but have only done our duty as aHierarch of our bleeding Mother Orthodox Church. That action is what hasbeen dictated to us by the Divine and Holy Canons and the many necessitiesof our Holy Struggle. We made that decision after persistent appeals of theHoly Clergy around us and the Genuine Orthodox Christian People, fromGreece and abroad, who have addressed me over a long period in manyappeals, petitions and personal please, and whom I have obeyed for the sole

213 Bishop Andrew, op. cit., p. 82.214 Monk Antonios, op. cit., pp. 34-51.215 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 139-140.

93

purpose of not wanting to deprive Christ’s Church of Her canonicalshepherds, and in order not to be judged by God and the people as a cunningservant who has hidden his talent.”

Now the consecration of a bishop by one bishop only is contrary to theFirst Apostolic Canon, which decrees a minimum of two or threeconsecrators, as well as to other sacred Canons.

However, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite writes in his commentary on thiscanon: “The Apostolic Constitutions (Book 8, chapter 27), on the other hand,commands that anyone ordained by a single bishops be deposed from officealong with the one who ordained him, except only in case of persecution orsome other impediment by reason whereof a number of bishops cannot gettogether and he has to be ordained by one alone, just as Siderius wasordained bishop of Palaebisca, according to Synesius.”216 And the same holyfather writes: “In times of heresy, according to necessity, not everything is tooccur in accordance with the canons which are established in times ofpeace.”217

Again, V.K. writes that consecration of a bishop by one bishop only “isallowed by the canons in exceptional circumstances”, “and we havenumerous witnesses to this from the history of the Orthodox Church.”218

216 St. Nicodemus, in The Rudder, Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957, p. 4.217 See St. Nicephorus, “Answer to Question 1 of Monk Methodius”.218 V.K. Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ na Steziakh Otsupnichestva (The Russian Church Abroad onthe Path of Apostasy), St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 31 ®. “’If three bishops cannot be obtained, it isfitting for the election to the episcopate to be made with two and with one’. Kormchaia Kniga(Rudder) of Patriarch Joseph [of Moscow]. Chapter 42 of Justinian the Emperor, folio 302 onthe obverse. In the Ancient Church the sacrament of consecration to the episcopate wasalways accomplished by only one bishop, as follows from the rite of hierarchical consecration ofthe Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome (II) and the Apostolic Decrees of St. Clement ofRome (VIII.4, 5), while the remaining bishops and members of the clergy stand near the altaras witness to the reality of the consecration. Cf. Protopresbyter N. Afanasiev, Ekklesiologiavstuplenia v klir (The Ecclesiology of Entering the Clergy), Kiev, 1997, pp. 38-42” (op. cit., p. 96,note 10).

“The following were consecrated to the episcopate by one bishop: Monk-Martyr Nicon(Prologue, 23 March); Priest Disan by Bishop Heliodorus (Prologue, 9 April); St. Stephen ofSourozh consecrated one of his clergy to the episcopate (Prologue, 15 December); St. JohnChrysostom consecrated bishops on his own in the place of his exile, Kuksa (Margarit. Zhitie(Life), folio 158 on the obverse); St. Siderius of Palebistina was consecrated by one bishop,while St. Athanasius the Great not only confirmed this ordination, but also raised him to therank of metropolitan of Ptolemais (Pamyatniki drevnej Khristianskoj Istorii (Monuments ofAncient History), vol. I, p. 88); Meletius, Patriarch of Alexandria blessed Bishop Gideon ofLvov to consecrated metropolitans and bishops for Little Russia on his own (Kniga Kirillova(Cyril’s Book), fol. 487)… Besides these examples, there are the following: Bishop Gabriel ofZarna consecrated three bishops for the Church of Greece on his own in 1825, which was thenconfirmed by the Council of 1834; Bishop Joasaph of Kodiak was consecrated by one bishopsince the second was not able to come. Opredelenia Arkh. Sobora RPZTs ot 15(28).9.1971(Decrees of the Hierarchical Council of the ROCOR of September 15/28, 1971)” (op. cit., p. 96,note 11). Concerning the consecration of Bishop Joasaph of Kokiak, the Russian Holy Synod

94

The question is: were the circumstances exceptional enough in the case ofBishop Matthew? In this case it was possible to argue that a dispensationcould be invoked on the grounds that: (a) Bishop Matthew had tried andfailed to obtain co-consecrators from abroad, and (b) he was the only truebishop in Greece at the time, or (c) no other bishop was able, or would agree,to consecrate bishops with him.

With regard to (a), Archbishop Andrew (one of the priests consecrated byBishop Matthew) writes that three archimandrites and Fr. Eugene Tombrosasked Matthew to go ahead with the consecrations as early as November 28,1945 (just after Metropolitan Chrysostom’s statement in Eleutheria), and thatrequests for assistance in the consecration of bishops were made to variousbishops (presumably foreign ones), but without success.219

But was Bishop Matthew really the only true bishop in Greece at that time(condition (b))? That could be maintained only on the assumption that all theother Old Calendarist bishops had fallen away from Holy Orthodoxy. Thatwas certainly not the case with Bishop Germanus. As for MetropolitanChrysostom, although he had clearly erred in softening the full force of theConfession of 1935, this did not make him automatically an apostate fromOrthodoxy, without even a synodical trial. As St. Nicodemus the Hagioriteexplains in his commentary on the 30th Apostolic Canon: “The Canons ordainthat a synod of living bishops should defrock priests, or excommunicate oranathematize laymen, when they transgress the Canons. However, if thesynod does not put into practical effect the defrocking of the priests, or theexcommunication or anathematization of the laymen, these priests andlaymen are neither defrocked nor excommunicated nor anathematized inactuality [ ]. However, they are subject to defrocking andexcommunication here, and to the wrath of God there.”220

According to many, Bishop Matthew was pushed into making theconsecrations by the protosynkellos of his Synod, Fr. Eugene Tombros, andAbbess Miriam of Keratea. Certainly, Fr. Eugene had a mistaken ecclesiologyaccording to which any break in communion between groups of bishops

wrote to Empress Catherine about this: “Although according to the rules of the Holy Fathersthis consecration must be performed by no less than two or three bishops, this canon refersmore to his election to the episcopal rank, which has already been accomplished by theSynod, hence by the power and operation of this election his consecration to the episcopacydue to necessity may be celebrated solely by the Bishop of Irkutsk” (The Orthodox Word, vol.35, №№ . 206-7, May-August, 1999, p. 128; cf. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, The Struggleagainst Ecumenism, Boston, 1998, p. 91).

It may be noted that St. Augustine, first archbishop of Canterbury, also consecratedbishops on his own with the blessing of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, and that St.Gregory the Wonderworker was consecrated “at a distance” by one hierarch (November 17).219 Metropolitan Calliopius, Nobles et Saints Combats, op. cit., pp. 67-68.220 Cited by Hieromonk Theodoretus, To Imerologiakon Skhisma (The Calendar Schism), p. 3 (G).

95

inevitably entails the loss of the grace of sacraments in one group. Evidentlyhe was unaware of the many times in Church history in which divisions havetaken place that did not constitute full schisms.221

With regard to the third condition (c), there is indisputable evidence(quoted above) that Metropolitan Chrysostom did not want to consecratebishops for the Old Calendarists. While this can hardly be called “betrayal” –after all, there is no canon which compels a bishop to consecrate other bishops,- it was certainly not the act of a man who believed in the real autocephaly ofthe Old Calendar Church of Greece.

As for the other bishop who might have assisted in the consecrations,Bishop Germanus of the Cyclades, he was in prison for ordaining priests – butwould hardly have assisted Matthew in any case, since even before his releasefrom prison he had come to believe that Metropolitan Chrysostom hadreturned to the Orthodox confession of 1935. For, in a pastoral letter dated 29October, 1948, Metropolitan Chrysostom had declared unambiguously thatthe new calendarists had “separated themselves from the Unique Body ofOrthodoxy… We consider and believe that the official Church of Greece isschismatic and that the services celebrated by its clergy are deprived ofDivine grace.”222 This encouraged Bishop Germanus, who had been in prisonfrom January, 1948 to January, 1950, to reconsider his position, and on hisrelease he re-entered communion with Metropolitan Chrysostom, who inMay, 1950 reaffirmed the Confession of 1935 (see below).

“Although Bishop Matthew’s integrity, personal virtue and asceticismwere admitted by all,” write the monks Holy Transfiguration Monastery, “hiscourse of action only widened the division between the ‘Matthewites’ and‘Florinites’.

221 Such divisions took place between the Roman Church and the Asian Churches (late 2nd

century), within the Roman Church (early 3rd century), between the Roman Church and theAfrican Church (3rd century), between St. Meletius of Antioch and Paulinus (4 th century),between St. Epiphanius of Cyprus and St. John Chrysostom (early 5th century), between theCeltic and Anglo-Saxon Churches (6th-7th centuries), between St. Wilfrid of York and the restof the English Church (7th-8th centuries), between St. Theodore the Studite and St. Nicephorus(9th century), between St. Photius the Great and St. Ignatius (9 th century), between theArsenites and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (13th-14th century), between the Serbian Churchand the Ecumenical Patriarchate (14th century), between the Russian Church and theEcumenical Patriarchate (15th-16th centuries), between the Greek kollyvades and theEcumenical Patriarchate (18th century), between St. Arsenius of Paros and the EcumenicalPatriarchate (19th century), between the Ecumenical Patriarchate (19th century) and the GreekState Church (19th century), between the Bulgarian Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate(19th century). Fr. Eugene assumed that the simple fact of the division between Matthew andthe others meant that one side - in this case, the other side - must have lost grace. SeeHieromonk Theodoretus, To Imerologiakon Skhisma (The Calendar Schism), pp. 8-9, and Lardas,op. cit., p. 24.222 Metropolitan Calliopius, Nobles et Saints Combats, op. cit., p. 144.

96

“The ‘Florinites’ and the ‘Matthewites’ made many attempts atreconciliation, but all were unsuccessful. Stavros Karamitsos, a theologian andauthor of the book, The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, describes as an eye-witness the two instances in which Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florinapersonally attempted to meet with Bishop Matthew. Unfortunately, on bothoccasions – the first, which had been planned to take place on January 19,1950, at the Matthewite Convent in Keratea at the invitation of [theMatthewite] Bishop Spirydon of Trimythus, and the second, which actuallydid take place at the Athens Metochion of the Keratea Convent – the abbessand senior nuns of that convent, at the prompting of the Matthewiteprotopresbyter Eugene Tombros, intervened and would not allowMetropolitan Chrysostom to speak with Bishop Matthew. On the secondoccasion, in May of 1950, when Bishop Matthew was on his deathbed and hadbeen unconscious for three days, Metropolitan Chrysostom arrived at BishopMatthew’s quarters and approached his bedside. Standing at his side,Metropolitan Chrysostom bowed down and quietly asked him, ‘My holybrother, how are you feeling?’ To the astonishment of all present, BishopMatthew regained consciousness and opened his eyes. When he saw theMetropolitan, he sought to sit up out of deference and began to whispersomething faintly. At that very moment, the Abbess Mariam of the Conventof Keratea entered the room with several other sisters and demanded that allthe visitors leave. Only a few days later, on May 14[/27], 1950, BishopMatthew died.”223

On May 26, 1950, Metropolitan Chrysostom officially returned to theconfession of 1947. Together with Bishop Germanus, he sent the followingencyclical both to the offices of the State Church and to the Matthewites: “Inthe year of our Saviour 1935 we proclaimed the Church of the innovating newcalendarists to be schismatic. We reiterate this proclamation and inconsequence ordain the enforcement of the First Canon of St. Basil the Greatthat the sacraments celebrated by the new calendarists, in that the latter areschismatics, are deprived of sanctifying grace. Therefore no new calendaristmust be received into the bosom of our Most Holy Church or be servedwithout a prior confession by which he condemns the innovation of the newcalendarists and proclaims their Church schismatic. As regards those whohave been baptized by the innovators, they should be chrismated with HolyChrism of Orthodox origin, such as is found in abundance with us.

“We take this opportunity to address a last appeal to all the True OrthodoxChristians, calling on them in a paternal manner to come into union with us,which would further our sacred struggle for patristic piety and would satisfyour fervent desire.

“In calling on you, we remove the scandals which have been created by usthrough our fault, and to that end recall and retract everything written and

223 The Struggle against Ecumenism, op. cit., pp. 64-66.

97

said by us since 1937, whether in announcements, clarifications, publicationsor encyclicals, which was contrary and opposed to the Principles of theEastern Orthodox Church of Christ and the sacred struggle for Orthodoxyconducted by us, as proclaimed in the encyclical published by the Holy Synodin 1935, without any addition or subtraction, and including the scientificdefinition ‘Potentiality and Actuality’.”224

This humble and thoroughly Orthodox statement persuaded a largenumber of Matthewites to rejoin Metropolitan Chrysostom. However, it didnot satisfy the Matthewite hardliners. What disappointed them was that whileChrysostom returned to the 1935 Confession and admitted his guilt in theintervening years, he did not also confess that he was a schismatic and turn tothe Matthewites to be readmitted into the Church, but rather called on themto be reunited with him. In any case, they did not want to be subject to ahierarch who refused to act as the head of an autocephalous Church andconsecrate bishops, thereby threatening the survival of the Church.

However, Chrysostom was not a schismatic. He had not returned to thenew calendarists, nor had he been tried or defrocked by any canonical Synod.And he still retained the support of the majority of the bishops and clergy, 850parishes and about a million laypeople.225 Although he had wavered on thequestion of grace, this was neither heresy nor schism, and certainly notautomatic apostasy. For, as Metropolitan Macarius (Nevsky) of Moscow, whowas himself unlawfully removed from his see in 1917, said: “The HolyChurch cannot allow an incorrect attitude towards its first-hierarchs, shecannot remove them from their sees without a trial and an investigation.”226

Not every division in the Church constitutes a full-blown schism leading tothe loss of sacramental grace of one of the parties. The Apostle Paul speaks of“quarrels” and “differences of opinion” within the one Church of theCorinthians (I Corinthians 1.10-14, 11.19). St. John Chrysostom says that thesequarrels took place “not because of difference in faith, but from disagreement inspirit out of human vanity”.227 Blessed Theodoretus of Cyr agrees with this.

Again, Protopriest Michael Pomazansky writes: “The unity of the Churchis not violated because of temporary divisions of a non-dogmatic nature.Differences between Churches arise frequently out of insufficient or incorrectinformation. Also, sometimes a temporary breaking of communion is causedby the personal errors of individual hierarchs who stand at the head of one oranother local Church; or it is caused by their violation of the canons of the

224 Hieromonk Amphilochius, Gnosesthe tin Alitheian(Know the Truth), Athens, 1984, p. 21 (G).225 Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, letter to the author, February 5, 1991.226 Cited by Bishop Arsenius (Zhadanovsky), Vospominania (Reminiscences), Moscow: St.Tikhon's Theological Institute, 1995, p. 210 ®.227 Quoted in Michael Podgornov, “Otpal li Arkhiepiskop Andrej (Ukhtomskij) vstaroobriadcheskij raskol?” (Did Archbishop Andrew (Ukhtomsky) Fall Away into the OldRitualist Schism?), Russkoe Pravoslavie (Russian Orthodoxy) , № 2 (11), 1998, p. 20, footnote 16 ®.

98

Church, of by the violation of the submission of one territorial ecclesiasticalgroup to another in accordance with anciently established tradition.Moreover, life shows us the possibility of disturbances within a local Churchwhich hinder the normal communion of other Churches with the given localChurch until the outward manifestation and triumph of the defenders ofauthentic Orthodox truth. Finally, the bond between Churches can sometimesbe violated for a long time by political conditions, as has often happened inhistory. In such cases, the division touches only outward relations, but doesnot touch or violate inward spiritual unity.”228

The extreme Matthewite position leads to the following reductio adabsurdum. Let us suppose that Chrysostom was automatically defrocked in1937 for calling schismatics Orthodox. It follows that all the bishops in thehistory of the Orthodox Church who transgressed in the same way were alsoautomatically defrocked. Therefore Metropolitan Dorotheus and the Synod ofthe Ecumenical Patriarchate were also automatically defrocked in 1920 forembracing the western heretics. Moreover, all those who remained incommunion with Dorotheus were also automatically defrocked. But thatincluded the Eastern Patriarchs, the Patriarchs of Russia and Serbia and ingeneral the whole of the Orthodox Church! But then we must conclude, inaccordance with strict Matthewite reasoning, that the Church of Christ ceasedto exist in 1920! But, of course, the Matthewites do not draw this logicalconclusion from their own premises. Therefore their reasoning must beconsidered to be inconsistent.

The New Calendarist Offensive

In June, 1950 Archbishop Spyridon Vlachos wrote to the Greekgovernment that the Old Calendar movement was a form of pan-Slavismmore dangerous to the nation even than communism! This was followed by afierce persecution of the Old Calendarists, both Florinites and Matthewites.

This community in persecution is a powerful argument that both factionscommuned of the True Body and Blood of Christ. And there were prominentOld Calendarists who refused to take sides. Thus on being asked whichfaction he belonged to, Hieromonk Jerome of Aegina replied: “I am with allthe factions!”229

The renewal of persecution against the True Church was clearly imminentin 1949, when, “the State Church elected Archbishop Spyridon to the primacy;he was to prove the fiercest persecutor yet of the Old Calendarists.Immediately after his election, he required his Bishops to submit details about

228 Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood,1997, p. 235.229 Peter Botsis, Gerontas Ieronymos o Isykhastis tis Aiginas (Elder Jerome the Hesychast of Aegina),Athens, 1991 (G).

99

Old Calendar clergy, parishes, and monasteries in their dioceses. Thetheological schools were forbidden in the future to accept Old Calendariststudents (this order is still in effect, though heretics of various persuasions arenot debarred). Finally, on January 3, 1951, at the request of the Holy Synod ofthe State Church, a decree was issued by the Council of Ministers as follows:‘… It is decided that: 1) Old Calendarist clergy who do not have canonicalordination by canonical Bishops of our Orthodox Church, and who wearclerical dress, should be deprived thereof; 2) monks and nuns following theOld Calendar should be arrested and confined to monasteries, and those whobear the monastic dress uncanonically should be deprived thereof andprosecuted; 3) the Churches which have been illegally seized by the OldCalendarists should be returned to the official Church, as also the monasteriesthey possess illegally and capriciously; 4) the execution of the above beentrusted to the Ministries of Public Order, Justice, Religion, and Education.’

“The above plan was put into immediate effect. In a short while, thebasement of the Archdiocese in Athens and other towns was filled with theclerical robes of the True Orthodox clergy who were taken there, shaved,often beaten, and then cast out into the street in civil dress; many Priestsunderwent this process a number of times, while others were arrested andsent into exile. One aged Priest, Father Plato, was beaten to death by thepolice in Patras, and then hastily buried in a field to cover up the crime. Allthe Churches in Athens were sealed and their vessels taken, and a fewChurches in other parts of Greece were even demolished. Soon no TrueOrthodox Priest could circulate undisguised, and even monks and nuns werenot immune to these profane attacks. The first victim was Bishop Germanusof the Cyclades, who died in the greatest grief when under house arrest onMarch 24, 1951, and was buried by the Faithful230 ; by the personal order ofArchbishop Spyridon, they were not permitted to take the body to a Church,and no Priest was allowed to assist; even so, many were arrested at thecemetery. Soon the orphanage of the TOC was seized by the State Church.There is no space here, unfortunately, to describe all the heroic struggles ofthe Old Calendarists at this time, the demonstrations attended by thousandsin the squares of Athens, the catacomb Church services and so forth, whichare the glory of our Church.

“The eighty-one-year-old Metropolitan Chrysostom was arrested inFebruary, 1951, and after repeated attempts to change his views, was exiled tothe Monastery of St. John in Lesbos, situated on a remote 2,500-foot crag,where he was to remain for over a year. The monks of the monastery behaved

230 According to another source, he was actually in hospital. The new calendarists placedguards over the dying confessor to see that no Old Calendarist priest was able to chant thefuneral service over him. However, with the aid of a sympathetic guard, HieromonkChyrsostom (Kiousis), the present archbishop of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, wasable to do just that. When a new shift of guards arrived, Fr. Chrysostom was forced to flee,and a car chase ensued through the streets of Athens… (Bishop Photius of Marathon, privatecommunication, July 11/24, 2005).

100

sympathetically, but conditions were very hard for an infirm, elderly man.The Metropolitan, however, constantly expressed his joy at being foundworthy to suffer for his Faith, and his satisfaction at the resistance andperseverance of the Faithful in the face of persecution. We have a preciousproof of his holiness from this bitter time: the police officer whose duty it wasto guard him, looked into the Bishop’s cell one evening and, to hisamazement, saw him standing in prayer with his hands raised, surroundedby a blinding heavenly light. The guard fell at his feet to ask forgiveness andsubsequently became one of his most faithful spiritual children.231

“Passion Week of 1952 saw fearful scenes of impiety perpetrated on theTOC, but it was rapidly becoming clear to all that the persecution wasproducing merely public disorder and complaint, and was achieving nothingin the way of ‘re-uniting’ the Faithful to the State Church; indeed, rather theopposite. Finally, in June, 1952, through the intervention of the new PrimeMinister, Plastiras, Metropolitan Chrysostom and the other Bishops werereleased. Slowly the pressure was relaxed, much aided by the constantprotests of Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria, a supporter of the OldCalendarists from the beginning, and eventually two Churches werepermitted to function in the city of Athens…. However, it was not until 1954that the violent measures finally came to an end and the Churches could besafely re-opened.”232

It is perhaps no accident that the persecutions against the True Orthodox inGreece took place when the Greek civil war and the great political turmoil ofthe previous decade had come to an end. Freed from external enemies, theState Church could now return to “the enemy within”. Even some formercommunist hierarchs were re-employed in the struggle against the TrueOrthodox, such as Metropolitan Anthony of Elia, who joined the party in 1944was deposed in 1946, but returned to his see after the amnesty of 1952.233

By 1949, however, the communist threat had receded and Greece wasfirmly back within the sphere of western influence. The time was ripe for theState Church to go forward to full union with the western heretics – but onlyif its rear could be secured from snipers of the True Orthodox Church. Hencethe significance of the election of the persecutor Archbishop Spyridon, who

231 During this period of exile, Metropolitan Chrysostom’s former deacon, now PatriarchAthenagoras, proposed that he return to the new calendarists and be “reinstated”. Themetropolitan refused (Agios Kyprianos (St. Cyprian), № 298, September-October, 2000, pp.350-351, 354 (G). (V.M.)232 Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos, Hieromonk (now Bishop) Ambrose andothers, The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, Etna, Ca.: Center for Traditionalist Studies,1986, pp. 15-18. The new calendarists did not allow any True Orthodox priests to bury BishopGermanus.233 Metropolitan Calliopius, Saint Joseph de Desphina (St. Joseph of Desphina), op. cit., p. 70,footnote 17.

101

was entrusted with removing this, the main obstacle to the furtherdevelopment of Ecumenism in the western world.

In this period, unfortunately, Metropolitan Chrysostom again wavered inrelation to the new calendarists. On December 11, 1950 he declared in thenewspaper Vradini (Evening) that the Old Calendarists were “a living arterythrough which clean Orthodox blood flowed into the heart of the Church”,and that the Old Calendarists had condemned the State Church as schismaticonly because the State Church had done the same to them (in 1926). And inthe same month he declared in the official organ of the Church, I FoniOrthodoxias (The Voice of Orthodoxy): “In spite of the cruel persecution thatthe innovating Church has organized against us, we avoided, at the beginningout of respect for the significance of the Church, to pronounce her schismaticin an ecclesiastical encyclical, at the same time that she declared us to beschismatics in court, condemning our bishops of Megara and Diauleia, inorder to justify their decision to depose them. But when we saw that theruling Synod had decided, contrary to all the holy canons and the age-oldpractice of the Church, to consider the sacraments of us, the true Orthodox, tobe invalid, then we, too, in defence issued this encyclical, so as to calm thetroubled conscience of our flock, and not for the sake of acquiring theproperty of the monastery in Keratea…”234

In March, 1951 the Greek Minister of Internal Affairs Bakopoulos issuedthe following statement concerning the negotiations between MetropolitanChrysostom and the newcalendarist Archbishop Spirydon: “Thenegotiations… are going well and have reached the point that the formerBishop of Florina has completely recognized his error… The official Churchhas exceeded all limits in the concessions it has made. In time it would haverehabilitated the Old Calendar bishops, and ordained their priests… andrecognized the sacraments accomplished by them as valid, and churcheswould have been offered for those who would want to celebrate according tothe old calendar. Both the former Bishop of Florina and the other bishops(Germanos of the Cyclades, Christopher of Megara and Polycarp of Diauleia)agreed with all this, and, according to our information, their representatives,distinguished lawyers, had to formulate a corresponding act… Unfortunately,at the last moment irresponsible activists from the lay estate interfered… andinfluenced the weak character of the former Bishop of Florina, who rejectedall that he had said earlier…”235

One of the conditions of union with the official Church was thecommemoration of the newcalendarist Archbishop Spirydon, on whichMetropolitan Chrysostom commented: ‘Oldcalendarism in its essence is aninvincibly strengthened protest… The only power which could review thisprotest and bring a final decision for or against the calendar innovation is a

234 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 9.235 Ethnikos Kirikas (National Herald), March 9, 1951; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 10.

102

Pan-Orthodox Council… Our movement is not being stubborn… Ouropinions differ from those of the leadership of the Autocephalous Church ofGreece… The second reason for the failure is the strange and imprudenthastiness of the competent people to force any kind of decision on us. Thusthey suggested that within three or six days the Old Calendarists shouldagree to commemorate the new calendarist metropolitan in their churches.We, for brevity’s sake, will omit all the other reasons which the making of thissuggestion made unacceptable, and ask the Greek people: how is it possiblefor an Old Calendarist to change his psychological presuppositions so quicklyas to consider as his president the metropolitan whom to this day he hasconsidered to be his real enemy and persecutor, and from whom he hassuffered much? We, at any rate, have not found this magic wand…”236

Metropolitan Chrysostom’s inconsistencies could not fail to undermine thedetermination of his fellow bishops; and although Bishop Germanos of theCyclades died as a confessor on March 24, 1951, the other three bishopsresigned from their pastoral duties on November 6, 1952, “until a finalresolution of the calendar question by a Pan-Orthodox Council”. 237 Thisdecision elicited demonstrations in the streets by the Florinites, which ledMetropolitan Chrysostom to withdraw his resignation. However, BishopsChristopher and Polycarp remained as simple lay members of the TrueOrthodox Church until February, 1954, when they returned to the StateChurch and were received in their existing rank.238

“As a result of this, Chrysostom of Florina remained alone as the head ofthe larger group of the True Orthodox Church until his death. Severalcandidates for the episcopacy were presented to him. Bishop Nikolaj(Velimirovič) of the Serbian Church, who was then residing in the UnitedStates, offered to help him consecrate new bishops. However, Chrysostomdeclined the suggestion239. In answer to the pleas of his flock for bishops, hedirected that they come to terms with the bishops Matthew had consecratedand have them somehow regularized according to the canons.”240

“The death of the Metropolitan, which occurred on the Feast of theNativity of the Mother of God, September 7, 1955 (old style), again permits usto glimpse his sanctity behind the veil of great modesty and privacy which healways maintained in his contacts even with his closest assistants. The Bishop,foreseeing his death, summoned his confessor, the Athonite ArchimandriteJohn, on the night before, and made an hour-long general confession.Returning home that evening, he instructed his attendant to spread his bed

236 Ethnikos Kirikas (National Herald), March 9, 1951; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 10-11.237 Hieromonk Amphilochius, Gnosesthe Aletheian (Know the Truth), Athens, 1984, pp. 33-36(G); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 17-19.238 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 19-20.239 Lardas, op. cit., p. 16. In the opinion of Joachim Wertz (personal communication), it is veryunlikely that Bishop Nikolai actually offered his help in this matter. (V.M.)240 Holy Transfiguration Monastery, The Struggle against Ecumenism, op. cit., pp. 73-74.

103

with new white sheets and coverings. In the morning he was found with hishands crossed on his chest, reposed in the Lord, with no sign of illness. Hiswill reveals that he had no money or possessions to dispose of. The funeral,held in the Church of the Transfiguration at Kypselli, Athens, was attendedby tens of thousands who came in grief to venerate the body of their leader,which according to Byzantine tradition was seated in the center of the Churchduring the funeral; afterwards, the police had to drive back the crowds topermit the body to be taken to the place of burial, the Dormition Convent onMount Parnes. By a curious coincidence, the bells of all the Churches inGreece were ringing mournfully as he went to his place of rest – the Synod ofthe State Church having so ordered as a sign of grief at the recent anti-Greekriots in Constantinople. When after six years, as is the custom in Greece, thebones of the Metropolitan were exhumed, the fragrance they produced filledthe entire convent for several days, and is still often perceptible.”241

In spite of his inconsistencies Metropolitan Chrysostom never entered intocommunion with the new calendarists. And there are other proofs of hisOrthodoxy. Thus Abbess Euthymia of the Dormition Convent writes: “Whenwe buried the ever-memorable hierarch Chrysostom, since he was buried inour Monastery, the whole place was fragrant and the builders who werebuilding the foundation of the church came down from there and asked ourelder: ‘Father, what is this fragrance which we can smell where we’reworking?’ And they saw the exhumation and understood. I was the one whowashed the bones of his Beatitude, and my hands were fragrant the wholenight. And this fragrance was perceptible in our Monastery for forty days.

“One nun who had been in the Monastery since the age of seven… saidthat she had not been baptized… When the Bishop of Florina fell asleep, shesat for forty days at his tomb and besought him to enlighten the elder tobaptize her. Then in her sleep she saw him sitting on a throne, and he told herthat she was unbaptized and that the elder should look at the holy Rudder.And indeed they found that when there are doubts people should bebaptized. And there was a consumptive girl who came and took some oilfrom the lamp of the tomb and smeared her breast with it and was healed.”242

Summarising the discords between the bishops in this period, the words ofthe Athonite Elder Damascene, who shared a cell with Bishop Matthew in the1920s but joined the “Florinites” in 1982, wrote: “The three ever-memorableHierarchs Chrysostom of Florina, Germanus of the Cyclades and Matthew ofBresthena struggled for the traditions of the Fathers. But as men wearing fleshand living in the world they fell into error while in this life. However, the

241 Archimandrite Chrysostomos, Hieromonk Ambrose, op. cit., pp. 19-20. According to HolyTransfiguration Monastery, the grave was opened in 1958, when the remains were found tobe fragrant. “In fact, the fragrance was so strong that lay workers came to ask what the sourcewas of this sweet aroma that had filled the entire surrounding area” (op. cit., p. 74).242 Karamitsos, op. cit., pp. 73-74.

104

three finished their lives in the good Confession and passed away inrepentance. And if someone wishes to represent one or other of the three ashaving been quite without reproach, and that he alone held the truth withoutany deviation, that man is, in the words of the divine Chrysostom, an erringscoffer, a deceiver and a base flatterer. That is, when he praises everything,both the good and the bad.”243

The True Orthodox Church of Cyprus

In Cyprus, where the great majority of the Orthodox had accepted thecalendar innovation in 1924.244 The centre of resistance to the innovation wasthe ancient monastery of Stavrovouni, where Hieromonk Cyprian and a fewdisciples continued to follow the Orthodox Calendar even after the abbotaccepted the innovation. In 1944, these monks were expelled fromStavrovouni, scattered round the island and founded some hermitages whichlater became monasteries. In 1946 Bishop Matthew sent five monks to Cyprus,and a little later, the protosynkellos of his Church, Fr. Eugene Tombros. In1948, as we have seen, he consecrated Bishop Spyridon, a Greek, for the TrueOrthodox of Cyprus.245

Galactotrophousa monastery, near Larnaka, was the first monastery of theTrue Orthodox and had been built at the direct command of the Mother ofGod. Monk Paul of Cyprus tells the story: “When the monastery was beingbuilt – in a poor way, like all the monasteries of the True Orthodox Christians,with mud bricks and straw – one of the monk-builders, a pious and verysimple man, but ‘a bird of passage’, was thinking of going elsewhere. Whilehe was relaxing under a tree at midday, the All Holy [Mother of God]appeared to him in majesty, as he told the story, and said: ‘Don’t go.’ He saidto her: ‘Why are you standing in the sun? Go into the shade.’ But she said tohim again: ‘Stay and build a church and cells for me, and I will bring mytreasures here and will live here because they are persecuting me from allsides with their new calendar.’ And then she disappeared.”246

Bishop Spyridon, after only nine months on Cyprus, was imprisoned andsent back to Greece by the British at the instigation of the new calendarists.While in prison, he told Abbot Chrysostom of Galactotrophousa monastery togo with him to Greece, where he would be consecrated bishop in his stead.

243 "Peri sykophantias" (On Slander), Agios Agathangelos o Esphigmenites (St. Agathangelos ofEsphigmenou), July-August, 1982, pp. 12-15 (G).244 However, the leading innovator, Archbishop Cyril, had a vision of angels on his deathbedwhich convinced him that he had committed a fatal error (Abbot Chrysostom ofGalactotrophousa monastery, Cyprus, personal communication, January, 1981).245 "Historie de l'Eglise des Vrais Chrétiens Orthodoxes de Chypre" (A History of the Churchof the True Orthodox Christians of Cyprus), Foi Transmise et Sainte Tradition (Transmitted Faithand Holy Tradition), Lavardac, № 21/23, numero special (F).246 Monk Paul, "I Panagia eis tin Kypron" (The All-Holy on Cyprus), Agios AgathangelosEsphigmenites (St. Agathangelos of Esphigmenou), № 125, May-June, 1991, p. 26 (G).

105

However, the authorities denied him a visa. But in 1957 Monk Epiphaniusarrived in Greece and was consecrated Bishop of Kition – which consecration,however, was not recognised by Bishop Spyridon.247 This caused a schism inthe Cypriot Church, and Abbot Chrysostom, who remained faithful to BishopSpyridon, was defrocked by the Matthewite Synod in Greece. However, theschism was healed, and Abbot Chrysostom was reinstated, in the 1980s.248

As regards the new calendarist Church of Cyprus, it was British policy tohinder the consecration of new bishops on Cyprus. After the newcalendaristArchbishop Cyril III died in 1933, and until 1947, the British colonialgovernment did not allow the election of a new first-hierarch. By this time allthe metropolitans on the island had been exiled except Leontius of Paphos.

In 1950 the new metropolitan became Archbishop Macarius III, who alsobecame the head of the Cypriot government. In September, 1952 began astruggle for national liberation from the British. In 1959 independence for theisland was achieved, although the British remained in possession of somemilitary bases.

The Cult of Stalin

While chastising the West for its political sins, the MP continued to glorifyStalin in the most shameful way, having truly become the State Church of theBolshevik regime. Already during the war, the cult of Stalin, probably thegreatest persecutor in the history of the Church, reached idolatrousproportions. He was “the protector of the Church”, “the new Constantine”.Thus Fr. Gleb Yakunin writes: “From the beginning of the war and the church‘renaissance’ that followed it, the feeling became stronger in the leadership ofthe Moscow Patriarchate that a wonderful act of Divine Providence in thehistorical process had happened in Russia. God’s instrument in this processwas, in their opinion, the ‘wise, God-established’, ‘God-given SupremeLeader’.”249 And yet Stalin never changed his basic hostility to the Church. In1947 he wrote to Suslov: “Do not forget about atheistic propaganda amongthe people”. And the bloodletting in the camps continued…250

Together with the cult of Stalin went the enthusiastic acceptance ofcommunist ideology and studied refusal to contemplate the vast scale of itsblasphemies and cruelties. Thus just after the war the MP expressed itself asfollows concerning the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR: “On thisday in all the cathedrals, churches and monasteries of our country there willbe offered the bloodless Sacrifice, whose beginning was laid by Him Who

247 Abbot Chrysostom, personal communication, January, 1981.248 On being exhumed, Abbot Chrysostom’s body was found to be partially incorrupt (Fr.Sotirios Hadjimichael, personal communication).249 Yakunin, op. cit, p. 190.250 Nikolai Savchenko, in Vertograd-Inform, September, 1998, Bibliography, pp. 1, 2 ®.

106

brought into the world the ideas of love, justice and equality. Deeply movedchurch-servers will come out onto the ambons and bless their children tohurry from the churches to the voting urns. They will bless them to cast theirvotes for the candidates of the bloc of communists… They themselves willcast their votes… The ideal of such a person is – Stalin…”251

However, the apotheosis of the Moscow Patriarchate’s cult of Stalin cameon the occasion of his birthday in 1949, when a “Greeting to the Leader of thepeoples of the USSR” was addressed to him in the name of the wholeChurch.252 “Without the slightest hesitation,” write Fr. Gleb Yakunin and agroup of Orthodox Christians, “we can call this address the most shamefuldocument ever composed in the name of the Church in the whole history ofthe existence of Christianity and still more in the thousand-year history ofChristianity in Rus’.”253 Again, on the day after Stalin’s death in March, 1953,Patriarch Alexis wrote to the USSR Council of Ministers: “In my own nameand in the name of the Russian Orthodox Church I express my deepest andsincerest condolences on the death of the unforgettable Joseph VissarionovichStalin, the great builder of the people’s happiness. His death is a heavy grieffor our Fatherland and all the peoples who dwell in it. His death has beentaken with deep grief by the whole of the Russian Orthodox Church, whichwill never forget his benevolent attitude towards the needs of the Church. Hisradiant memory will never be erased from our hearts. Our Church intones‘eternal memory’ to him with a special feeling of unceasing love.”254 Again, in1955 he declared: “The Russian Orthodox Church supports the totallypeaceful foreign policy of our government, not because the Church allegedly

251 Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), № 1, 1946; quoted in Obnovlentsy i Moskovskaia Patriarkhia: preemstvo ili evoliutisia? (The Renovationists and theMoscow Patriarchate: Succession or Evolution?), Suzdal, 1997, p. 13 ®.252 Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), № 12, 1949 ®.253 Cited in Potapov, What is False is also Corrupt , p. 223. See also Alexis’ sermon before hispannikhida for Stalin on December 21 (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 144-145). Hardlyless odious was the letter of congratulation sent by Catholicos Kallistrat of Georgia to Stalin:“On the day of your seventieth birthday, we, the believers and clergy of the GeorgianCatholicosate, send you, our near and dear Joseph Vissarionovich, our ardent and heart-feltcongratulations and wishes that your health remain unbroken and that you have a long lifefor the good of the whole of humanity. In the course of the first seventy years of your life,through unceasing activity and that immortal creation, your Constitution, you havestrengthened in the hearts of the workers of the whole world the evangelical behests ofbrotherhood, unity and freedom, which elicits disagreement in those who considerthemselves guides of the blind, light for those in darkness and instructors of the ignorant, andwho try to suppress the consciousness that has awakened in men of their lofty humandignity.

“Knowing firmly that it is difficult to kick against the pricks, we hope that in the first yearsof your second seventy years, the opponents of truth and justice will recover their sight andsay: you are right, Joseph Vissarionovich most wise, and righteous are your judgements…”(Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), № 1, 1950 ®.254 Izvestia, March 10, 1953 ®; Yakunin, op. cit., p. 199.

107

lacks freedom, but because Soviet policy is just and corresponds to theChristian ideals which the Church preaches.”255

In response to the MP’s description of Stalin as “the chosen one of theLord, who leads our fatherland to prosperity and glory”, MetropolitanAnastasy, first-hierarch of ROCOR, wrote that this was the point “where thesubservience of man borders already on blasphemy. Really – can one toleratethat a person stained with blood from head to foot, covered with crimes likeleprosy and poisoned deeply with the poison of godlessness, should benamed ‘the chosen of the Lord’, could be destined to lead our homeland ‘toprosperity and glory’? Does this not amount to casting slander and abuse onGod the Most High Himself, Who, in such a case, would be responsible for allthe evil that has been going on already for many years in our land ruled bythe Bolsheviks headed by Stalin? The atom bomb, and all the otherdestructive means invented by modern technology, are indeed less dangerousthan the moral disintegration which the highest representatives of the civil andchurch authorities have put into the Russian soul by their example. Thebreaking of the atom brings with it only physical devastation and destruction,whereas the corruption of the mind, heart and will entails the spiritual death of awhole nation, after which there is no resurrection.”256

Although the evidence is very meagre, and needs confirmation from othersources, it appears that the Catacomb Church also condemned the MP’s cultof Stalin. According to Bishop Ambrose von Sievers, it was anathematized bya Council of the Catacomb Church meeting in Chirchik, near Tashkent, in theautumn of 1948. It also anathematized the patriarchate’s 1948 council, anddeclared the canonical leader of the Russian Church to be MetropolitanAnastasius, first-hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad. This Council, whichconfirmed the decisions of the supposed “Nomadic Council” of 1928, wasattended by thirteen bishops or their representatives, and was organized byFr. Peter Pervushin, who had also played a major role in the 1928 Council.257

255 Quoted in Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive, London: AllenLane the Penguin Press, 1999, p. 635.256 I.M Andreyev, Is the Grace of God present in the Soviet Church? op. cit., pp. 32-33 (with somechanges in the translation).257 Bishop Ambrose (von Sievers), “Katakombnaia Tserkov’: Tainij Sobor 1948g.”, RusskoePravoslavie, № 5 (9), 1997, pp. 12-27 ®. In response to the increase in the infiltration of spiesand provocateurs into the ranks of the True Church, the Chirchik Council passed thefollowing canon: “We used to accept sergianist ‘priests’ and on the basis of the 19th canon ofthe Council of Nicaea we even ordained some of them with the true ordination. But now wesee that they all turned out to be agents of the antichristian power or traitors who destroyed amultitude of Christians. From now on we forbid this; whoever dares to violate our decision –let him be anathema.” (ibid., pp. 17-18). This decision was confirmed by a larger CatacombCouncil at the Nikolsky Council in Bashkiria in 1961 (Bishop Ambrose (von Sievers),“Katakombnaia Tserkov’: Tainie Sobory 1961-81gg.”, Russkoe Pravoslavie, 1998, № 1 (10), pp. 25-26 ®.)

108

ROCOR at the Crossroads

After the war, ROCOR had to face a difficult problem of self-definition. Inher founding Statute or Polozhenie she had defined herself as that part of theRussian Church which was outside Russia while still remaining incommunion with the “Mother Church” in the Homeland. Thus in 1945Metropolitan Anastasy declared that the members of ROCOR “have neverconsidered and do not consider themselves to be outside the enclosure of theOrthodox Russian Church, for we have never broken canonical, prayerful andspiritual unity with our Mother Church… We do not cease to thank God forjudging that we should remain the free part of the Russian Church. Our dutyis to preserve this freedom until we return to the Mother Church the preciouspledge entrusted by her to us. A completely competent judge between thebishops abroad and the present head of the Russian Church could be only afreely and lawfully convened All-Russian Council that is completelyindependent it its decisions, and in which as far as possible all bishops abroadand especially those now in prison will participate. We are ready to give anaccount before them of all our actions during our sojourn abroad.”258

In this statement there was no official clarification of what ROCOR’srelations with other Local Orthodox Churches in the West were to be, norprecisely who or what constituted the “Mother Church” of Russia, nor whowas to be admitted to this All-Russian Council or in what capacity. Nor didany of the ROCOR Councils of the next ten years clarify these matters259, in

258 Pravoslavnaia Zhizn’, № 6, 1976; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 100.259 The 1946 Council declared that the election of Patriarch Alexis was uncanonical, and onMay 10, it decreed: “The Higher Church Administration in Russia in the person of the currentHead of the Russian Church Patriarch Alexius has more than once already addressed thebishops abroad with an exhortation to enter into canonical submission to the patriarchate,but, listening to the directions of our pastoral conscience, we do not find it morally possible toacquiesce to these appeals as long as the Higher Church Administration in Russia is found inan unnatural union with the atheistic power and as long as the whole Russian Church isdeprived of true freedom, which is inherent in it by its Divine nature.”

The November, 1950 Council, after profusely thanking the Americans for the protectionthey afforded to refugees from religious persecution, and lambasting the “red dragon” ofcommunism, continued: “Insofar as the present Moscow Patriarch, and the other seniorhierarchs of the Church in Russia remain closely bound with the atheist Soviet power and areits helpers in its criminal activity, which is directed to the destruction of the Kingdom of Godon earth, our Church Abroad remains as before out of all communion with them, praying theLord only that He enlighten their spiritual eyes and turn them from that disastrous path onwhich they themselves have started and on which they are dragging their flock.

“At the same time we, her humble servants, kiss the confessing exploit of the Secret or so-called Catacomb Church, whether she is in the dens of the earth or conceals herself in thedepths of the Russian people itself, preserving the mystery of the faith in a pure conscienceand struggling with the lies spread by the Bolshevik authorities and by the Russian bishopsand clergy who have betrayed her.

“The Russian Church Abroad is in unity, love and prayer with all the other OrthodoxChurches which have preserved fidelity to the apostolic tradition, to whatever people theirmembers may belong. Still more would she want to preserve unity of spirit in the bond of

109

spite of the fact that clarification was becoming more and more necessary inview of the ever-increasing deviation of the Local Churches from Orthodoxy.

In view of these ambiguities, it is not surprising that some CatacombChristians who had fled to the West felt that a different spirit was reigning inROCOR. Thus Professor I.M. Andreyev wrote: “Not only were we ready todie, but many did die, confident that somewhere there, outside the reach ofthe Soviet authorities, where there is freedom – there the Truth was shining inall its purity. There people were living by it and submitting to it. There peopledid not bow down to Antichrist. And what terror overwhelmed me when,fairly recently, I managed to come abroad and found out that some peoplehere ‘spiritually’ recognise the Soviet Church. Spiritually! Many of us therefell, ‘for fear of the Jews’, or giving in to the temptation of outwardcooperation with the authorities. I knew priests of the official Church who, athome, tore their hair out, who smashed their heads making prostrations,begging forgiveness for their apostasy, calling themselves Cain – butnonetheless they did not recognise the Red Church. But these others abroad –it is precisely spiritually that they submit to it. What good fortune that ourpriest-martyrs, in dying, did not find out about this betrayal!”260

Such ambiguities had not created particular problems before the war. Onlywith the Ecumenical Patriarchate was there conflict, not so much over thequestion of the new calendar as over the EP’s relations with the Russianrenovationists and its “annexation” of large territories formerly belonging tothe Russian Church. Although, from a strictly canonical point of view, theRussian refugees should have sought admission into the Local OrthodoxChurches on whose canonical territory they lived, these Churches (primarilythe Serbian, but also the Bulgarian, the Romanian and the EasternPatriarchates, especially Jerusalem) did not insist on this, respecting theparticular needs of the refugees to stick together in one ecclesiasticalorganization, and taking into account the desire of the refugees to returneventually to Russia (which most believed would be soon).261

peace with the children of our one mother, the Russian Church Abroad, trying to overcomethe temporary jurisdictional divisions that exist between them.”

The 1956 Council declared that “the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an unseveredpart of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, being temporarily self-governing on synodalbases, until the abolition of atheist rule in Russia, in accordance with the resolution of theHoly Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Higher Russian Church Council of November 7/20,1920, № 362”.260 Andreyev, in Russia’s Catacomb Saints , Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Press, 1982, p. 49.261 As late as October 25, 1952, Patriarchs Christopher of Alexandria and Alexander ofAntioch made a point of telling ROCOR’s Bishop Seraphim (Ivanov) of Chicago that theyrecognized both the MP and ROCOR, since, as Patriarch Alexander said, “we do not considerourselves to have the right to be judges in your Russian ecclesiastical quarrel. We have bothbeen in Russia and have seen that Patriarch Alexis has a flock, and quite a numerous one. Butwe love all the Russians, and for that reason relate with equal benevolence to you, too. Aproof of this is the permission [I have given] for the existence in Beirut of two parishes: yoursand Moscow’s. If you want, serve anywhere you like with us in the confines of my

110

However, the triumph of the Soviets in the war dashed the hopes of anearly return to Russia. So the refugees had to decide how they were toestablish themselves in the West on a more permanent basis. This was mademore difficult by the fact that the previously friendly attitude of the LocalChurches was beginning to change, partly because they were coming underpressure from the MP to break links with ROCOR, and partly because theythemselves, as we have seen, were losing the salt of True Orthodoxy andtherefore had less sympathy for the True Orthodox Russians in their midst.

But in any case, ROCOR showed no sign of wanting to disband itsorganization and merge with the Local Churches. Thus in 1947 ArchbishopTikhon, the head of the Paris Exarchate, suggested to Metropolitan Anastasythat his Synod come under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, after which he,Tikhon, would enter into submission to ROCOR. Anastasy refused…262

However, this suspension of normal canonical rules could not continueforever. In fact, there was only one completely canonical way for ROCOR tore-establish her canonical status while preserving the integrity of her flockunder Russian bishops: to declare herself the only truly Orthodox jurisdictionin the West in view of the falling away of the Local Churches into the heresiesof ecumenism and sergianism. However, the bishops of ROCOR were notprepared to make such a bold step.

The first reason for this was that they did not appreciate how far the newcalendarist churches had departed from True Orthodoxy (they had no contactwith the Greek Old Calendarists, who could have told them), and they stillhoped for support from them and cooperation with them in matters that wereof common concern. And secondly, they feared to repel the tide of OrthodoxChristians fleeing from the communist nightmare in Russia and EasternEurope by a too-strict attitude towards the status of the official churchesthere, to which most of the new wave of refugees had belonged. Instead,while continuing to berate (but not too strongly) the shortcomings of the MP,ROCOR positioned itself, not as the sole representative of True Orthodoxy inthe West, but as the “anti-communist church”, that part of the Russian Churchwhich was in freedom and able to tell the truth about the situation in Russia.

This was not a dishonourable position, but it did not resolve the canonicalstatus of ROCOR, and it bore the not inconsiderable danger of exposing its

patriarchate.” Patriarch Christopher said approximately the same, only asking Seraphim toconvey to Metropolitan Anastasy his desire that when appointing hierarchs for Africa, heconfer with him about it and saw to it that his name was commemorated in the Russianchurches in Africa (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 16).262 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 121-122. However, ROCOR’s Archbishop Nathanael ofWestern Europe concelebrated with Archbishop Tikhon in May, 1947 (Archbishop Seraphimof Brussels, “Vospominania” (Reminiscences), Russkij Pastyr (The Russian Pastor), № 36,2000; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 122).

111

flock to the winds of false doctrine. Anti-communism was part of a trulyviable Orthodox ideology, but only a part. If it was allowed to assume a moreimportant role than the struggle against heresy, then ROCOR could well findherself dissolving into the modernist jurisdictions around it, and even,eventually, into the MP if the fall of communism in Russia was not followedby a real repentance in the Russian people.

This problem of self-definition was only partly eased by the transfer of theadministration of ROCOR to New York in 1950. America was not, and is notnow, the “canonical territory” of any single Local Church, so the anomalousposition of ROCOR in America (and other western territories, such asWestern Europe and Australia) was less prominent in view of the anomalousposition of all jurisdictions in the New World. For it is a fundamental tenet ofOrthodox canon law that there should be only one bishop for one territory –the division of the Orthodox flock in one place into various jurisdictions alongethnic lines is forbidden, and was even anathematised by the EcumenicalPatriarchate as the heresy of “phyletism” in 1872.

As we have seen, at ROCOR’s first Council of Bishops in America in 1950, arelatively firm stand against ecumenism was adopted, and ROCOR sanctifiedits own chrism for the first time. Logically, this should have led to a stricterattitude towards the Orthodox Churches that took part in the ecumenicalmovement. But under Metropolitan Anastasy this did not take place…

It was at the Hierarchical Council of October, 1953 that the beginning of areal debate on this subject began to surface. Metropolitan Anastasy said:“Archbishop John [Maximovich] says that we have not deviated from theright path pointed out to us by Metropolitan Anthony. We are a part of theRussian Church and breathe with the spirit of the Russian Church of all ages.But it is dangerous to draw from this the extreme conclusion that we are theonly Church, and that we need pay no attention to the others or reckon withthem. We are going along the right path, and the others have declined from it,but we must not proudly despise the others, for there are Orthodox hierarchsand priests everywhere. The words of Maximus the Confessor are often cited:‘if the whole universe were to communicate, I alone would not.’ But he said:‘if’. And when the Prophet Elijah thought that he alone kept the faith, theLord revealed to him that there were still 7000 others…”

However, Archbishop Averky, supported by Archbishop Leonty,suggested a sharper, more aggressive posture towards the MP, relating tothem as to renovationists. Archbishop John replied that the Synod hadrecently decided to accept Archimandrite Anthony (Bartoshevich) from theMP in his existing rank. And he recalled, according to protocol № 5 forOctober 3/16, “that the question of concelebrating with clergy of the MoscowPatriarchate had been discussed at the 1938 Council, and it had been acceptedthat only Metropolitan Sergius was out of communion.” When Archbishop

112

Averky called the MP “the church of the evil-doers”, Archbishop John replied“that it was important to clarify whether this concerns all those in thisChurch. Among the rank-and-file hierarchs there are very good men, while astrict examination must be applied to those at the head.”263

It has been the argument of this book that in this point Archbishop Averkywas right and Archbishop John, great saint though he was, was wrong. By1945 the great majority of the MP hierarchs were ex-renovationists, and “verygood” hierarchs must have been very few and far between; and even if theywere “good” in a moral sense, their submission to the MP’s submission to theBolshevik authorities could in no way be counted as good. Moreover, thegreat majority of the confessing hierarchs of the Catacomb Church, who werein a better position to judge about the MP than the hierarchs abroad,considered the MP to be indeed “the church of the evil-doers”.

As for the necessity of applying a strict examination to those coming fromthe MP, this had been dramatically proved by the large number of traitorswho had infiltrated ROCOR since the war. Already during the war, therenovationist “Bishops” Ignatius (Zhebrovsky) and Nicholas (Avtonomov)

263 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 21. Archbishop John continued to retain this “liberal”attitude toward the MP to the end of his life. Thus in a letter dated September 13, 1963 hewrote: “… When under Metropolitan Anastasy they began to speak about ‘the incorrectactions of the Church’, he used to stop them, pointing out that one must not ascribe theactions of the hierarchy to the Church, since the hierarchy is not the whole Church, even if itspeaks in her name. On the see of Constantinople there were Paul the Confessor, Macedonius,Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorius, Proclus, Flavian and Germanus. Someof them shone in sanctity and Orthodoxy, but others were the leaders of heresies. But theChurch remained Orthodox. During iconoclasm after the expulsion of Severnin, Nicephorusand other, not only their sees, but also the majority of Episcopal sees were occupied byArians. The other Churches did not even have communion with it [the see of Constantinople],according to the witness of St. Paul, who abandoned the heresy and his see, since they did notwish to have communion via the iconoclasts. Nevertheless, the Church of Constantinopleremained Orthodox, although part of the people, and especially the guards and thebureaucrats, were drawn into iconoclasm. So now it is understandable when people who arenot familiar with the language of the Church use the expression ‘Soviet church’, but it is notfitting for responsible and theological discussions. When the whole hierarchy of South-Western Rus’ passed into uniatism, the Church continued to exist in the person of thebelieving Orthodox people, which after many sufferings restored its hierarchy. For thatreason it is more correct to speak, not of the ‘Soviet church’, which is impossible in the correctunderstanding of the word ‘Church’, but of the hierarchy, which serves Soviet power. Ourrelationship to it can be the same as to other representatives of this power. Their rank givesthem the opportunity to act with great authority and to substitute the voice of the sufferingRussian Church, and it is leading into error those who think to learn from them the trueposition of the Church in Russia. Of course, among them there are both conscious traitors,and those who simply do not find in themselves the strength to fight with their environmentand who go with the current – that is a question of their personal responsibility. But as awhole it is the apparatus of Soviet power, the God-fighting power. Being on the one hand ahierarchy in the sphere of Divine services, for grace works independently of personalworthiness, in the social-political sphere it is a cover for the Soviet God-fighting activity. Forthat reason those who are abroad and have entered its ranks have become conscious helpersof this power…” (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 13)

113

had been received, it appears, with the minimum of formalities, andappointed to the sees of Vienna and Munich, respectively, before beingremoved at the insistence of zealous laymen. 264 Again, the formerrenovationist and leading ROCOR hierarch in Western Europe during thewar, Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade) of Berlin, secretly petitioned to bereceived into the MP “in his existing rank” before his death in 1950 – but wasrefused.265 Again, Metropolitan Seraphim (Lukyanov) of Paris joined the MP,was received back into ROCOR in his existing orders, and then returned tothe MP in 1954. Again, among the twelve Belorussian and Ukrainian bishopswho were received “in their existing rank” by ROCOR in 1946, at least oneproved to be a Judas – Archbishop Panteleimon (Rudyk), whose immoralityleft a trail of destruction in various countries before he, too, joined the MP.

Stung by these betrayals, on October 14/27, 1953, the Hierarchical Councildecreed that “in cases where it is revealed that those who have received theirrank from the hierarchy of the MP by the Communists with the intention ofpreaching in holy orders the Communist principles of atheism, such anordination is recognized as neither grace-bearing nor legal.” Again, onNovember 9, 1959 the Council decreed that “from now on, if clergy of the MPwant to enter into the ranks of our Church Abroad: (1) They must be carefullychecked to see whether they are conscious agents of the atheist authorities,and if this is discovered, the Hierarchical Synod must be informed. It may notrecognize the validity of the ordination of such a person to the sacred rank; (2)In cases where no such doubts arise, he who is petitioning to be received intothe clergy of the Church Abroad is to be received through public repentance.Moreover, a penance may be imposed on him as the Diocesan Hierarch seesfit; (3) Such clergy must give a written declaration on their reception inaccordance with the form established by the Hierarchical Synod; (4) Whenlaypeople from the flock of the MP are received into the Russian ChurchAbroad, spiritual fathers must try their conscience with regard to the mannerof their actions while they were under the atheist authorities.

The Council confirmed the following text to be signed by those clergybeing received into the communion: “I, the undersigned, a former clergymanof the Moscow Patriarchate, ordained to the rank of deacon (by such-and-such

264 See Chernov, "Proniknovenie Obnovlenchestva v Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi" (ThePenetration of Renovationism into the Russian Orthodox Church) (MS) ®; letter ofArchbishop Averky to Metropolitan Philaret, September 14/27, 1966 ®.265 Chernov, “Proniknovenie Obnovlenchestva…” (The Penetration of Renovationism), op.cit., p. 3. However, Archbishop Ambrose (von Sievers), following Chernov, asserts that inJuly-August, 1950 Metropolitan Seraphim was secretly received into the MP. This wasfollowed by his mysterious death at the hands of bandits on August 15, 1950. ArchbishopAmbrose explains this by the fact that ROCOR, being a “public-legal corporation” in Germanlaw, was the only organization that guaranteed Russian emigrants freedom from deportationback to the USSR. The news that Metropolitan Seraphim had secretly defected to the MPthreatened all these emigrants (Bezobrazniki: K sobytiam v RPTsZ 1945-55gg.” (Hooligans:On Events in ROCOR from 1945 to 1955), Russkoe Pravoslavie (Russian Orthodoxy), № 2 (16), 1999, p. 17 ®).

114

a bishop in such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time) and ordained tothe rank of presbyter (by such-and-such a bishop bishop in such-and-such aplace at such-and-such a time) and having passed through my service (insuch-and-such parishes), petition that I be received into the clergy of theRussian Orthodox Church Abroad.

“I am sincerely sorry that I was among the clergy of the MoscowPatriarchate, which is in union with the God-fighting authorities.

“I sweep aside all the lawless acts of the Moscow hierarchy in connectionwith its support of the God-fighting authorities and I promise from now on tobe faithful and obedient to the lawful hierarchy of the Russian ChurchAbroad.)”266

In general, however, the 1953 Council adopted a distinctly liberal attitudetowards other Church jurisdiction. Thus in relation to the AmericanMetropolia Metropolitan Anastasy said: “They do not have the fullness oftruth, they deviate, but this does not mean that they are without grace. Wemust maintain objective calm with regard to them. We must strive for suchunity on the same fundamental concepts of the Temporary Regulations uponwhich we stand today. Yet it is fair to say that all unity begins with personalcontact: Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess. But weseem to regret that the keenness of jurisdictional quarreling has been dulled.But our goal is unity. Certain boundaries were needed as for disciplinarypurposes. Now, when many extremes were abandoned in the AmericanMetropolia, we still sharpen the question and speak of them as heretics withwhom we can have no contact. Bishop Nicon said that we are very weak. Thisis not quite true. But externally, we are weaker than our opponents, who havemoney and the press on their side. The battlefield is not even. If we elevatethe conflict, a very difficult situation will arise."267

So the metropolitan was advocating retaining contacts and not “elevatingthe conflict” because the position of ROCOR from an external point of viewwas weak. This policy could be justified at the time in view of the fact that theMetropolia had not yet been absorbed into the MP. However, ROCOR laterabandoned it – when the Metropolia was absorbed into the MP in 1970.

With regard to the Eulogians, Metropolitan Anastasy was also lenient.Thus on October 19, 1956, in response to a statement by Bishop Leontius ofChile that ROCOR should treat the Eulogians as renovationists and notpermit any concelebrations, the metropolitan said that the Eulogians were

266 Letter of Protopresbyter George Grabbe to Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, May 6/19,1969, in Bishop Gregory Grabbe, Pis’ma (Letters), Moscow, 1998, pp. 14-15 ®.267 Quoted in Nun Vassa (Larin), “The Ecclesiastical Principle of oikonomia and ROCORunder Metropolitan Anastasy”, a report to the Conference on the History of the RussianChurch in November, 2002 ®.

115

different, since they were not heretics. 268 And yet ROCOR had herselfcondemned the Eulogians’ teaching on Sophianism as heresy!269

Metropolitan Anastasy also said: “Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky]was guided by this rule of St Basil the Great when he said that he wasprepared to accept through the third rite both Catholics and Anglicans. Hewas of the view that as soon as organic ties to heresy are torn and Orthodoxyis accepted, grace is received, as if an empty vessel were filled with grace. Wehold to the principle that we can accept those through the third rite whosethread of succession had not been torn. Even the Armenians, who confess adefinite heresy, are accepted in their existing rank. Concerning the Anglicans,the question arose because they themselves are not certain that they havesuccession. If we accept those who depart from heresy, how can we not acceptour own [emphasis mine—NV]? They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned morethan his predecessor. Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny hisordination. Much is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We canhardly make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirmatheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the Orthodoxline. They took and continue to take very strict measures with regard to theobnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with Patriarch Tikhon. The false policybelongs to the church authority and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders.Only heresy adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In thiscase, the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and theChurch, as such, remains unblemished. No one has the audacity to say thatthe whole Church is without grace, but insofar as priests had contact with thedevious hierarchy, acted against their conscience, repentance is necessary.There can be no discussion of ‘chekists in cassocks.’ They are worse thanSimon the Sorcerer. In this regard, in every individual case, one must make aspecial determination, and, if there is suspicion that a chekist is asking tocome to us, we must not accept him.”270

Metropolitan Anastasy’s extremely liberal attitude towards the reception ofCatholics, Anglicans and Armenians is perhaps excusable in that it reflects theextremely liberal attitude of the Russian Church as a whole just before therevolution. However, it disagreed not only with prior Russian practice, butalso with the practice of the Greek Church, and with the holy canonsthemselves (for example: the canons decree that Armenians should bereceived by Chrismation). Fortunately, this illegitimate practice of“oikonomia” was officially rescinded by the ROCOR Synod underMetropolitan Philaret in September, 1971, when it was decreed that Catholics

268 Fr. Alexander Lebedev, “1956 ROCOR Sobor on Eulogian Jurisdiction”, [email protected]. November 30, 2002.269 True the Eulogian jurisdiction had obtained a retraction of his views from the leadingSophianist, Fr. Sergei Bulgakov. However, the Eulogians did not clearly condemn the heresy,and their jurisdiction continued to be a hothouse of heresy for decades. See Andrew Blane(ed.), Georges Florovsky, op. cit., p. 67.270 Nun Vassa, op. cit.

116

and Protestants should henceforth be received by baptism. And when theCopts were once allowed to conduct a service in Jordanville, MetropolitanPhilaret ordered that the church be cleansed from the defilement of heresy byholy water!

As regards the Metropolitan Anastasy’s assertion that the MP took “verystrict measures with regard to the obnovlentsy”, this, unfortunately, was nottrue. As is well-known, both the first “patriarchs” of the MP, Sergius andAlexis, were former renovationists (obnovlentsy), and, far from repenting oftheir renovationism, they transformed the MP into an institution that was“renovationist in essence” (St. Cyril of Kazan’s words). Still more seriously, aswe have seen, it received into the episcopate a whole series of renovationistprotopriests with the minimum of formalities.

In his assertion that “the false policy [of the MP] belongs to the churchauthority and the responsibility for it falls [only] on its leaders”, MetropolitanAnastasy was unfortunately contradicting the teaching of the OrthodoxChurch, which considers that lay Christians are rational sheep who can andmust separate from heretical leaders. Similarly, his assertion that “only heresyadopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church” would not havebeen accepted by the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Councils. If the hierarchy ofa Church adopts a heretical or antichristian policy, then it is the responsibilityof all the lower ranks to rebuke their leaders, and if the rebukes fail, toseparate from them because they are no longer true bishops (15th canon of theFirst-and-Second Council of Constantinople).

The Metropolia Archbishop John (Shahovskoj) argued that the position ofROCOR towards the MP in this period was hypocritical insofar as itsimultaneously called the MP apostate and sorrowed over the persecutions inthe USSR and the closure of churches, although, according to its logic, itshould have rejoiced over the closure of apostate churches.

In reply, the secretary of the ROCOR Synod, Fr. George Grabbe, repliedthat while calling the MP “apostate” and even, in some cases, using the word“gracelessness”, ROCOR never, at any of its Synodal sessions, expressed anydoubt that the pastors and laymen belonging to the MP who were faithful toGod were true pastors. Then, citing examples of the infiltration of agents intothe hierarchy of the MP, Fr. George continued: “That is the gracelessness weare talking about! We are talking about those Judases, and not about the fewsuffering people who are vainly trying to save something, the unfortunate,truly believing pastors”.271

271 Quoted by Deacon Nicholas Savchenko, “Pis’mo otkolovshikhsia” (A Letter of Those WhoHave Fallen Away), Otkliki na deiania Arkhierejskogo Sobora RPTsZ 2000 goda i na prochieposleduiuschie za nim sobytia (Reactions to the Acts of the Hierarchical Council of the ROCOR in2000 and to Other Events that Followed it), Paris, 2001, p. 9 ®.

117

Of course, this answer raised more questions than it answered. If all ormost of the hierarchy were KGB agents (and this was established beyonddoubt in 1992), and therefore graceless, how could the priests whom theyordained and who commemorated them be true priests? And how could thelaymen be true laymen if they communicated from false bishops and priests?Is it possible in general to speak about faithful priests and laitycommemorating a faithless and apostate bishop?

These questions never received satisfactory answers and continued to giveROCOR’s witness in relation to the MP an ambiguous character for decades tocome. Only on one question was ROCOR clear: that it had no communionwith the MP Synod. And so it left SCOBA (the Council of Orthodox Bishopsof America) in 1956 when the MP became one of its members.272

With regard to the other Churches of World Orthodoxy, a liberal policywas pursued until the retirement of Metropolitan Anastasy in 1964. ThusROCOR hierarchs continued to concelebrate intermittently with both theGreek new calendarists and with the Serbian and Jerusalem patriarchates.Thus in 1948 Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) concelebrated at theconsecration of Bishop Michael Konstantinidas of the EcumenicalPatriarchate, a friend of Metropolitan Anastasy from the days when the latterlived in Constantinople in the 1920s.273 Again, Bishop Leontius of Genevaconcelebrated with Patriarch Timothy of Jerusalem at the Convent on theMount of Olives in 1954.274

Archbishop John (Maximovich) of Western Europe consecrated severalnew-calendarist bishops, all of whom left ROCOR for “World Orthodoxy”after his death: Bishop Theophilus (Ionescu) of Detroit and his Romanian newcalendarists to the Romanian patriarchate (ROCOR defrocked him in 1972),Bishop John-Nectarius (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis and his French mission(following the Gallican rite) to the Romanian new calendar church275, and

272 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 28.273 Andrei Psarev, “The Development of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’sAttitude Toward Other Local Orthodox Churches”,http://www.sobor2006.com/printerfriendly2.php?id=119_0_3_0, p. 3.274 Psarev, op. cit. Jerusalem had promised Moscow to break with ROCOR, and PatriarchTimothy explained to Bishop Seraphim of Mahopac in Jerusalem in 1952 that he could notserve at the Holy Sepulchre because the Jerusalem Patriarchate recognized the MP. On theother hand, all heads of ROCOR’s Ecclesiastical Mission, as well as the abbesses of themonasteries, were affirmed by official letters issued by the Jerusalem Patriarchate (Psarev, op.cit.)275 “After the death of Vladyka John, in September, 1966 the ROCOR Hierarchical Synodentrusted the leadership of the affairs of the French Orthodox Catholic Church to ArchbishopVitaly (Ustinov). On October 9 Archbishop Vitaly was present at a General Assembly of theFOCC, where he declared that it was necessary to stop celebrating the liturgy according to thewestern rite and insisted on the complete acceptance of the Byzantine rite. As a mark ofprotest, on October 19 Bishop John (Kovalevsky) declared that the FOCC was leavingROCOR. Part of the communities of the FOCC refused to leave ROCOR, but the Gallican rite

118

Bishop Jacob (Akkerduik) of the Hague to the MP (he complained thatROCOR wanted to “russify” his flock).

Thus ROCOR was neither in official communion with World Orthodoxynor clearly separated from it: it existed in a kind of canonical limbo, a Churchthat consecrated her own chrism but did not claim to be autocephalous, aChurch of almost global jurisdiction but claiming to be part of the RussianChurch inside Russia. The question was: which Russian Church inside Russiawas it part of – the MP or the Catacomb Church?

The answer to this question was left deliberately vague. On the one hand,there was clearly no communion with the hierarchy of the MP, which was seento have compromised itself with communism. On the other hand, communionwas said never to have been broken with the suffering people of Russia. Butwhich people were being talked about? Those who considered themselvescitizens of the Soviet state, or those who rejected such citizenship?

In spite of his lack of communion with the MP, Metropolitan Anastasyappears to have considered it to be the “Mother Church”. Thus he wrote toMetropolitan Theophilus of New York: “Your proposed union with thePatriarchate has not only a spiritual, but a canonical character, and binds youwith the consequences. Such a union would be possible only if the MotherChurch were completely free…”276

In 1957, however, in his last will and testament, Metropolitan Anastasyclearly drew the boundaries as follows: “As regards the Moscow Patriarchateand its hierarchs, then, so long as they continue in close, active andbenevolent cooperation with the Soviet Government, which openly professesits complete godlessness and strives to implant atheism in the entire Russiannation, then the Church Abroad, maintaining her purity, must not have anycanonical, liturgical, or even simply external communion with themwhatsoever, leaving each one of them at the same time to the final judgementof the Sobor of the future free Russian Church…”277

Again, on October 18, 1959, in his address at the opening of theHierarchical Council of ROCOR, he said: “We must not only teach others, butourselves also fulfil [that which we teach], following the examples of theMoscow saints whom we have commemorated today. They stand before us as

was preserved among them on condition that the Byzantine rite was used as the main rite(later most of these parishes left ROCOR and joined one of the Greek Old CalendaristChurches). At the end of the same year Bishop John (Kovalevsky) addressed the heads of theLocal Orthodox Churches with a request that they receive the FOCC with the keeping of theGallican rite” (lesolub, http://www.livejournal.com/users/dodododo/601987.html,December 12, 2005) ®.276 Metropolitan Anastasy, in Fr. Alexis Young, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia,San Bernardino, CA: the Borgo Press, 1993, p. 47.277 Metropolitan Anastasy, in Young, op. cit., pp. 55-56.

119

Orthodox zealots, and we must follow their example, turning asidecompletely from the dishonesty of those who have now occupied their throne.Oh if they could but arise, they not only would not recognise any of theirsuccessors, but rather would turn against them with severe condemnation.With what zeal would St. Philip be set aflame against the weak-in-faithrepresentatives of the Church, who look with indifference at the flowing ofthe innocent blood of their flock, and yet do not condemn the enemies of theChurch, but try in every way to flatter the atheistic authority. How the greatadamantine St. Hermogen would have arisen in righteous indignation, seeingthe hierarchy remaining deceitfully silent at a time when atheist propagandais being widely disseminated, forgetting that by their silence they arebetraying God. Let us in every way turn aside from them, but at the sametime let us arm ourselves with apostolic zeal. We must avoid every kind ofcontact with them like the plague. You know that these people with theirthoroughly burned consciences will never cease to wage war against us,although they constantly change their methods of warfare.”278

In 1961, moreover, he showed that he had not forgotten the CatacombChurch, declaring in the name of ROCOR: “We consider ourselves to be inspiritual unity precisely with the Secret Church, but not with the officialadministration of the Moscow Patriarchate led by Patriarch Alexis, which ispermitted by the atheist government and carries out all its commands…”279

However, the Epistle of the Hierarchical Council of 1962, while rebukingthe atheists, expressed sympathy for the simple believers and even for thesimple priests, while the Great-Martyr Great Russian Church was identifiedwith the whole of the church people, including those in the Moscow Patriarchate,but excluding “the small group of clergy having the right to a legalexistence”.280 But how could the priests be inside the Church and the peoplethey served outside it? This was ecclesiological nonsense!

This kind of ambiguity in relation to the Church in Russia was displayedby other leading hierarchs of ROCOR. One of these was Archbishop Vitaly(Maximenko) of Jordanville, a disciple of Metropolitan Anthony(Khrapovitsky), who had once served the liturgy on his own breast in a Polishprison. He could, in one and the same article, fiercely criticise Sergius’ policiesas leading to the destruction of the Church and speak about “the profoundreverence [we feel] before the exploit of Patriarch Sergius”.281

278 Quoted by Irina Pahlen, “Metropolite Anastasy” (Metropolitan Anastasy), [email protected]. December 3, 2002.279 Metropolitan Anastasy, in Nashi Vesti (Our News), 1991, no. 4 ®.280 A.A. Sollogub (ed.), Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ za granitsej (The Russian Orthodox ChurchAbroad), vol. I, 1958, pp. 306-307; quoted in Protopresbyter Victor Melehov, “O PolozheniiRusskoj Zarubezhnoj Tserkvi v Sovremennom Mire” (On the Position of the Russian ChurchAbroad in the Contemporary World), 2002, MS ®.281 Maximenko, Motivy moej zhizni (Motifs of my life), Jordanville, 1955, p. 77 ®.

120

Again, he wrote, fully in the spirit of the Catacomb Church: “They say: thepatriarchate has changed nothing, in dogmas, services or rites. No, we reply,the patriarchate has destroyed the essential dogma of the Church of Christ,and has rejected Her essential mission – to serve the regeneration of men, andhas replaced it by the service of the godless aims of communism, which isunnatural for the Church. This falling away is more bitter than all theprevious Arianisms, Nestorianisms, Iconoclasms, etc. And this is not thepersonal sin of one or another hierarch, but the root sin of the MoscowPatriarchate, confirmed, proclaimed and bound by an oath in front of theworld. It is, so to speak, dogmatized apostasy…”282

This was an inspired definition: dogmatized apostasy. Not simply apostasy“for fear of the Jews”, but dogmatized apostasy – that is, apostasy raised to thelevel of a dogma. When apostasy is justified in this way, it becomes deeper,more serious and more difficult to cure. It becomes an error of the mind aswell as a disease of the will. For it is one thing for a churchman out ofweakness to submit himself and his church to the power of the world and ofthe Antichrist. That is his personal tragedy, and the tragedy of those whofollow him, but it is not heresy. It is quite another thing for the samechurchman to make the same submission “not for wrath, but for conscience’ssake” (Romans 13.5) – to use the words of the apostle as perverted by Sergiusin his declaration. This is both heresy and apostasy – dogmatized apostasy.

However, at another time Archbishop Vitaly said that the Providence ofGod had placed before ROCOR the duty “of not tearing herself away from thebasic massif, the body, the root of the Mother Church: in the depths of thismassif, which is now only suffocated by the weight of Bolshevism, thespiritual treasures of Her millennial exploit are even now preserved. But wemust not recognise Her contemporary official leaders, who have become theobedient instrument of the godless authorities.”283

As V.K. justly comments: “In these words is contained a manifestincongruity. How did Archbishop Vitaly want, without recognising theofficial leadership of the MP, at the same time not to be torn away from itsbody? Is it possible ‘to preserve the spiritual treasures’ in a body whose headhas become ‘the obedient instrument of the godless authorities’ (that is, theservants of satan and the antichrist), as he justly writes of the sergianistleaders?... The Holy Scriptures say: ‘If the firstfruit is holy, the lump is alsoholy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches’ (Romans 11.16). And on theother hand: ‘A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear goodfruit’ (Matthew 7.18).”284

282 Maximenko, op. cit., p. 25.283 Maximenko, op. cit., p. 45.284 V.K. Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ na Steziakh Otstupnichestva (The Russicha Church Abroadon the Path of Apostasy), St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 48 ®.

121

Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople

In 1949 there flew into Constantinople – on President Truman’s personalplane, “Air Force One” – the second Meletius Metaxakis, the formerArchbishop of North and South America Athenagoras, who in 1919 had beenappointed secretary of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece by Metaxakishimself. 285 By an extraordinary coincidence Athenagoras was a formerspiritual son of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina, so that the leaders of theopposing sides in the Church struggle in the early 1950s were, like David andAbsalom, a holy father and his apostate son. To make way for Athenagoras, a3rd degree Freemason, Patriarch Maximus V, an opponent of ecumenism, wasforced into retirement by his Synod on grounds of mental illness (although hewas completely sane).286 It was not only in the Soviet Union that psychiatrywas used to get rid of dissenters…

In his enthronement speech Athenagoras went far beyond the bounds ofthe impious masonic encyclical of 1920 and proclaimed the dogma of ‘Pan-religion’, declaring: “We are in error and sin if we think that the OrthodoxFaith came down from heaven and that the other dogmas [i.e. religions] areunworthy. Three hundred million men have chosen Mohammedanism as theway to God and further hundreds of millions are Protestants, Catholics andBuddhists. The aim of every religion is to make man better.”287

This astonishing apostasy from the Orthodox Faith roused hardly amurmur of protest from the autocephalous Orthodox Churches…

On February 6, 1952 Patriarch Athenagoras wrote to all the LocalChurches, mendaciously trying to convince them that membership of theWCC was not incompatible with Orthodoxy: “In accordance with itsconstitution, the WCC is trying only to unite the common actions of thechurches, so as to develop cooperation in the study of the faith in a Christianspirit, in order to strengthen ecumenical thinking among the members of allthe churches, and support a wider spreading of the Gospel, and finally topreserve, raise and regenerate spiritual values for humanity within the limitsof general Christian standards… We, the members of the Orthodox Church,must take part in this common-Christian movement because it is our duty toshare with our heterodox brothers the wealth of our faith, Divine services andTypicon, and our spiritual and ascetic experience…”288

285 Pravoslavie ili Smert'(Orthodoxy or Death), № 1, 1997, p. 6 ®.286 Maximus was removed because he was an opponent of ecumenism. When they asked himin 1965 what had been the reason for his deposition, he replied: “It’s not worth commentingon how they deposed me.” (Agios Agathangelos Esphigmenites (St. Agathangelos of Esphigmenou),№ 138, July-August, 1993 (G)).287 Hieromonk Theodoretus, Palaion kai Neon (The Old and the New), Athens, 1991, p. 21 (G).288 Archbishop Iakovos Koukoujis, “The Contribution of Eastern Orthodoxy to theEcumenical Movement”, The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and

122

In accordance with this instruction, the Orthodox delegates to the Faithand Order conference in Lund in 1952 declared: “We have come here not inorder to condemn the other Churches, but to help them see the truth, in afraternal way to enlighten their thoughts and explain to them the teaching ofthe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is, the Greek OrthodoxChurch, which has been preserved without change since apostolic times.”289

This supposed justification of the ecumenical movement – missionarywork among the heterodox – has been repeated many times to the presentday. But participation in such ecumenical organizations as the WCC not onlyhas not helped Orthodox missionary work: it has quenched it. A clear proof ofthis was the statement of all the heads of the Local Orthodox Churches inConstantinople in 1992 renouncing missionary work among WesternChristians…

The Orthodox ecumenists seemed to forget that one cannot hold the fire ofheresy in one’s bosom and not be burned, and that the Protestants could usethe ecumenical movement for their own missionary work among theOrthodox … Thus 1955 the Faith and Order Working Committee of the WCCproposed an Orthodox consultation with the ultimate aim that, as Dr. M.Spinka put it, “at some future time of the hoped-for spiritual ‘Big Thaw’,when these communions have had a chance to think it over in a repentant orchastened mood, they might perhaps join us!” 290 In other words, theOrthodox had to “repent” of their insistence that the Orthodox Church is theChurch, in order to become worthy of entering the new pseudo-Church withthe Protestants!

Nevertheless, until the late 1950s, the participation of the OrthodoxChurches in the ecumenical movement was hesitant and strained.Athenagoras himself, contrary to his later practice, put restrictions onOrthodox participation in his 1952 encyclical: “Orthodox clergy must refrainfrom joint concelebrations with non-Orthodox, since this is contrary to thecanons, and blunts consciousness of the Orthodox confession of faith”.291

Again, at the Second General Assembly at Evanston (1954) the Orthodoxdelegates declared: “We are bound to declare our profound conviction thatthe Holy Orthodox Church alone has preserved in full and intact the Faithonce delivered to the saints.”292 Again, at the Faith and Order conference atOberlin (1957), which was centred on the theme, “The Unity we Seek”, theOrthodox declared: “’The Unity we Seek’ is for us a given Unity which has

Statements, 1902-1975, Geneva: The World Council of Churches, 1978, p. 216; Monk Benjamin,op. cit., part 4, p. 14.289 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 19.290 Macris, op. cit., p. 16.291 Macris, op. cit., pp. 8-9; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 15.292 Macris, op. cit., p. 10.

123

never been lost, and, as a Divine gift and an essential mark of Christianexistence, could not have been lost… For us, this Unity is embodied in theOrthodox Church.”293

The Orthodox Churches were restrained especially by the fear that theWestern Christians would use the ecumenical movement to achieve bypeaceful means what they had failed to achieve by force (for example, inSerbia in 1941). In the case of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the fear of losingthe holy places to the Catholics and Protestants played an important role.And so widespread and whole-hearted participation of the Orthodox in theecumenical movement had to wait until, on the one hand, the KGB masters ofthe East European Churches decided that their vassals’ participation in themovement was in the interests of world communism, and on the other, theCatholics themselves began to recognize the Orthodox as “equal partners” inthe Second Vatican Council (1959-1964).294

Towards the end of the 1950s Athenagoras began to make feelers towardsRome. Thus on March 17, 1959, at the request of Athenagoras, ArchbishopJames of North America (a Freemason of the 33rd degree) met Pope JohnXXIII, the first such meeting for 350 years. The archbishop said: “Your All-Holiness, my patriarch had entrusted me to inform you that the sixth verse ofthe first chapter of the Gospel of John speaks about you. He is convinced thatthe man sent from God is precisely you, and the seventh verse explains themeaning of his embassy – ‘he came for a witness, to witness about the light,that all should believe through him’. And so you were elected for this end,although in your essence you are not the light, but you were raised to theRoman see ‘to witness to the light’.”295

In April, 1961, Archbishop James began to develop a new theology ofecumenism, declaring: “We have tried to rend the seamless robe of the Lord –and then we cast ‘arguments’ and ‘pseudo-documents’ to prove – that ours isthe Christ, and ours is the Church… Living together and praying togetherwithout any walls of partition raised, either by racial or religious prejudices, isthe only way that can lead surely to unity.”296 What could these “pseudo-documents” and “religious prejudices” have been if not the sacred Canonswhich forbid the Orthodox from praying together with heretics?

In April, 1963, Archbishop James said: “It would be utterly foolish for thetrue believer to pretend or to insist that the whole truth has been revealedonly to them, and they alone possess it. Such a claim would be both unbiblical

293 Macris, op. cit., p. 11.294 The ground for this was being prepared already in 1952, when Pope Pius XII issued anApostolic Epistle declaring that before the council of Florence in 1439 there had been no breakbetween the Russian Church and the Papacy (Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 15).295 Information, № 1, 1994 (Vatican); Monk Benjamin, http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis4.htm,part 4, p. 33 ®.296 "The Unity of Christian Churches", cited in Macris, op. cit., p. 23.

124

and untheological… Christ did not specify the date nor the place that theChurch would suddenly take full possession of the truth.”

This statement, which more or less denied that the Church is, as theApostle Paul said, “the pillar and ground of the Truth” (I Timothy. 3.15),caused uproar in Greece and on Mount Athos. However, Athenagorassupported James, calling his position “Orthodox”. 297 “Let the dogmas beplaced in the store-room,” he said. “The age of Dogma has passed.”298

From this time on, the two Masons went steadily ahead making ever moreflagrantly anti-Orthodox statements. As we shall see, there was someopposition from more conservative elements in the autocephalous Churches.But the opposition was never large or determined enough to stop them…

At a meeting of the Faith and Order movement in Montreal in 1963, amemorandum on “Councils of Churches in the Purpose of God” declared:“The Council [WCC] has provided a new sense of the fullness of the Churchin its unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. These marks of the Churchcan no longer be simply applied to our divided churches, therefore.”Although this memorandum was not accepted in the end because of Fr.Georges Florovsky’s objections, it showed how the WCC was encroaching onthe Orthodox Church’s understanding of herself as the One Church. Indeed, itcould be argued that the Orthodox participants had already abandoned thisdogma. For as early as the Toronto, 1950 statement of the WCC’s CentralCommittee, it had been agreed that an underlying assumption of the WCCwas that the member-churches “believe that the Church of Christ is moreinclusive than the membership of their own body”.299

At the Second Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes, in September, 1963,the sending of observers to the Second Vatican Council was discussed. Therewas much disagreement, and eventually a compromise was reached: everyLocal Church should make the decision independently.300 It was unanimouslyagreed that the Orthodox should enter into dialogue with the Catholics,provided it was “on equal terms”. In practice, this meant that the Catholicsshould abandon their eastern-rite missions in Orthodox territories.

The Catholics have never shown much signs of wishing to oblige in this,but they did help to make a dialogue easier by redefining the Orthodox, inVatican II’s decree on Ecumenism, as “separated brethren” rather than“schismatics”.

297 Macris, op. cit., pp. 43-44.298 Hieromonk Damascene, op. cit., p. 395.299 Ulrich Duckrow, Conflict over the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva: The World Council ofChurches, 1981, pp. 31, 310.300 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 13.

125

By this time the Orthodox had ceased to issue separate statements atecumenical meetings outlining the ways in which the Orthodox disagreedwith the majority Protestant view. “As Father Georges [Florovsky] put it,American Protestants were not alone in seeking within the World Council tostress common elements and to discount the issues that divide. There werealso respected Orthodox leaders under the sway of the spirit of adjustment.Certainly on the Russian side there were roots for another approach. AsAlexander Schmemann has said of the development of Russian theology inthe emigration, in the 1920s and 1930s there had arisen

“‘Two different approaches to the very phenomenon of the EcumenicalMovement and to the nature of Orthodox participation in it. On the one handwe find theologians who acknowledge the Ecumenical Movement as, in away, an ontologically new phenomenon in Christian history requiring a deeprethinking and re-examination of Orthodox ecclesiology as shaped during the“non-ecumenical” era. Representative names here are those of SergiusBulgakov, Leo Zander, Nicholas Zernov, and Pavel Evdokimov. Thistendency is opposed by those who, without denying the need for ecumenicaldialogue and defending the necessity of Orthodox participation in theEcumenical Movement, reject the very possibility of any ecclesiastical revisionor adjustment and who view the Ecumenical Movement mainly as apossibility for an Orthodox witness to the West. This tendency finds its mostarticulate expression in the writing of Florovsky.”301

The Communists Become Ecumenists

So far it had been the Ecumenical Patriarchate that had made the runningin Orthodox ecumenism. However, in 1959 the MP sent its representative,Metropolitan Nicholas of Krutitsa, to the Orthodox consultation proposed bythe Faith and Order Committee near Athens, which indicated that thecommunists had changed their minds about ecumenism, and decided that theRussian Church’s participation in it would further their cause. This change ofmind was partly the result of the fact that, as Fr. Georges Florovsky lamented,from the time of the Evanston conference a progressive takeover took place ofthe “Faith and Order” concerns by the “Life and Work” concerns.302 That is, ofthe two strands of ecumenical activity that had existed before the war – theresolving of dogmatic differences among Christians, and “concern for theworld and its problems” – it was the latter that was becoming dominant. Andthis was of great interest to the communists.

We have seen that, as late as the Moscow council of 1948, the MP, inobedience to its communist masters, had adopted an anti-western and anti-ecumenical position. However, this position began to change in the late 1950s,

301 Blane, op. cit., pp. 124-125.302 Andrew Blane (ed.), Georges Florovsky, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,1993, p. 122.

126

when the MP began to be pushed into joining the WCC by the Council forReligious Affairs. Thus on January 16, 1958, Metropolitan Nicholas asked theCouncil how he was to reply to the suggestion of the WCC general secretarythat he meet representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. ComradeKarpov, head of the Council for Religious Affairs, said that he should replythat they in principle agreed to a meeting in June-July of that year.

And so on May 13 Metropolitan Nicholas asserted that “in the last tenyears, thanks to the participation of some Orthodox Churches and the non-participation of others in the ecumenical movement, significant changes havetaken place witnessing to its evolution towards churchness [tserkovnosti].Very indicative in this respect have been huge movements in the sphere ofGerman Protestant theology revealing the mystical depths of Orthodoxy andovercoming its traditional rationalism… On coming into contact with ourecclesiastical life, many actors in the ecumenical movement have completelychanged their idea of Orthodoxy… Evidently approving of the declaration ofthe Orthodox participants in the Evanston assembly, we agree to a meetingwith the leaders of the World Council of Churches exclusively in the name ofour Pan-Orthodox duty – to serve the reunification of all Christians in thebosom of the Church of Christ.”303

In 1959, as a sign of the changing times, the MP joined the EuropeanConference of Churches as a founding member… Then, on June 15, 1960 thenew head of the Council for Religious Affairs, Kuroyedov met PatriarchAlexis. As Fr. Sergius Gordun writes, “Kuroyedov declared that he hadcarefully studied the external activities of the Patriarchate and he had come toconclusion that the situation was quite unsatisfactory. ‘In recent years thePatriarchate has not undertaken a single major initiative for the unification ofthe Orthodox Churches around the Russian Orthodox Church headed by theMoscow Patriarchate – initiatives, that is, aimed at exposing the reactionaryactivities of the Pope of Rome and the intensification of the struggle for peace.The Patriarchate is not using those huge opportunities which she enjoys; shehas not undertaken a single major action abroad… The Russian OrthodoxChurch is not emerging as a unifying centre for the Orthodox Churches of theworld, usually she adopts a passive stance and only weakly exposes theslanderous propaganda concerning the position of religion and the Church inour country… The Council recommended to Metropolitan Nicholas that hework out suggestions for intensifying external work. However, MetropolitanNicholas has not fulfilled this request of the Council and has put forwardsuggestions which in no way correspond to the requirements discussed withthe metropolitan in this regard.’ Then Kuroyedov suggested thatMetropolitan Nicholas be released from his duties as president of theDepartment of Foreign Relations and that they be imposed on another, morefitting person.”

303 Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), 1958, № 6; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 30.

127

The “suggestion” was accepted, and Metropolitan Nicholas was retired onJune 21. In July, he asked Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) of Brussels to tell theworld that a new persecution was beginning, and in August repeated thismessage to other western church leaders. At the end of August, Kuroyedovsuggested to the patriarch that he retire Metropolitan Nicholas fromadministering the Moscow diocese. The patriarch suggested to themetropolitan that he accept the Leningrad diocese, but the latter sharplyrejected the offer. On September 9, Metropolitan Nicholas sent a letter toKhruschev (there was no reply). On September 19, the MP Synod retired him.On December 13 he died in suspicious circumstances; many believe he wasmurdered.304

Some believe that Metropolitan Nicholas was removed because in 1959KGB defector Major Peter Deriabin had exposed him before a U.S. SenateSubcommittee as a KGB agent305 , and so he had to be replaced. There is nodoubt that he was an agent, as we have seen; but it also appears likely that hesincerely wanted to protect the Church. In any case, his career is yet anotherillustration of the Lord’s words that one cannot serve two masters, God andMammon…

The new foreign relations supremo turned out to be Bishop Nicodemus(Rotov), who was born in 1929, made priest at the extraordinarily young ageof 20, and Bishop of Podolsk on July 10, 1960, at the age of 31. His arrival onthe scene marks a new advance in the apostasy of the MP. For, as Fr. Sergiuscontinues: “The personality of Archimandrite Nicodemus (Rotov), laterMetropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, is linked with the change in theposition of the Moscow Patriarchate in relation to the ecumenical movement.As is well known, the Conference of the heads and representatives of theautocephalous Orthodox Churches, which took place in Moscow in 1948,accepted a resolution declaring that ‘the aims of the ecumenical movement…do not correspond to the ideals of Christianity and the tasks of the Church ofChrist as those are understood by the Orthodox Church’. In this connectionparticular mention was made of the ecumenical movement’s turn towardsinvolvement in social and political life, which was not acceptable forOrthodoxy. This position was maintained by the Moscow Patriarchate until1960. In a conversation which took place on April 2, 1959, his HolinessPatriarch Alexis informed the Council about the attitude of the Russian

304 "Nekotorie Stranitsy Biografii Mitropolita Nikolaia (Yarushevicha)" (Some Pages from theBiography of Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich), Vertograd-Inform, №№ 7-9 (16-18), 1996,pp. 16-17 ®; Andrew and Mitrokhin, op. cit., p. 636.305 Deriabin, who served in the Kremlin Guard Directorate and then as Rezident in charge ofespionage in Vienna, testified that “every priest is an agent of the secret police. Even thesecond ranking official in the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow [Metropolitan Nicholas]is an agent” (Chronicle-Telegraph of Elyria, Ohio, July 20, 1961; in Vladimir Kozyreff, “Re:[paradosis] Happiness and successes – and Bishop Meletieff”, [email protected], January 19, 2006.

128

Church to the ecumenical movement, and declared that she intendedgradually to increase her links with the World Council of Churches and tosend her observers to its most important conferences, but would not become amember of this organization. However, a year and a half later this positionchanged. In the notes of a conversation which took place between PatriarchAlexis and V.A. Kuroyedov on September 15, 1960, there is the followingphrase: ‘The Patriarch accepted the recommendation of the Councilconcerning the entry of the Russian Orthodox Church into the membership ofthe World Council of Churches and evaluated this as a major action of theRussian Orthodox Church in its activities abroad.’ What was the aim of theCouncil for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in recommending thatthe Russian Church enter the World Council of Churches? To conceal, itwould seem, the anti-ecclesiastical policy of the Soviet government. Havingcornered the Church, the Council wanted to create the image of a free andactive Russian Church abroad…”306

In November-December, 1960 Patriarchs Alexis and Athenagoras met inConstantinople, and discussed questions related to the Second VaticanCouncil After their meeting Bishop Nicodemus, now president of the MP’sDepartment of External Relations, gave a press conference at which he said:“The Russian Church has no intention to take part in the Council, since theunion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism cannot take place unless theVatican renounces from the beginning certain principles – for example, theinfallibility of the Pope; and unless it accepts the dogmatic reformsaccomplished in the Orthodox Church.307

On March 30, 1961 the MP Synod resolved “to consider the entry of theRussian Orthodox Church into the World Council of Churches to be timely,and to ask his Holiness the Patriarch to send a letter to the General Secretaryof the World Council of Churches declaring the desire of the RussianOrthodox Church to become a member of the World Council of Churches.”308

From September 24 to October 1 the Orthodox Churches in the WCC meton Rhodes under the presidency of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Athens. Oneof its participants, Archbishop Basil of Brussels, recalls that “the relations ofthe Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world were reviewed indetail. With regard to the Catholic Church, the majority of participants in theconference expressed themselves ‘for the development of relations in the

306 Gordun, "Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' pri Sviateishikh Patriarkhakh Sergii i Aleksii"(The Russian Orthodox Church under their Holinesses Patriarchs Sergius and Alexis), VestnikRusskogo Khristianskogo Dvizhenia (Herald of the Russian Christian Movement) , vol. 158, I-1990,pp. 120, 133, 134 ®.307 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 42.308 Monk Benjamin, “Letopis’ Tserkovnoj Istorii (1961-1971)” (A Chronicle of Church History(1961-1971), http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis5.htm, p. 1 ®.

129

spirit of the love of Christ, with particular reference to the points envisagedby the 1920 encyclical of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate.’”309

Also discussed was a catalogue of topics for a future Pan-OrthodoxCouncil. The MP tried hard to ensure that no topic that might proveembarrassing to the Soviet government was included. For, as Gordienko andNovikov write, “in the course of the debate on the catalogue, the MoscowPatriarchate’s delegation [led by Nicodemus] suggested the removal of someof the subjects (The Development of Internal and External Missionary Work,The Methods of Fighting Atheism and False Doctrines Like Theosophy,Spiritism, Freemasonry, etc.) and the addition of some others (Cooperationbetween the Local Orthodox Churches in the Realisation of the ChristianIdeas of Peace, Fraternity and Love among Peoples, Orthodoxy and RacialDiscrimination, Orthodoxy and the Tasks of Christians in Regions of RapidSocial Change)… Besides working out the topics for the future Pre-Council,the First Conference passed the decision ‘On the Study of Ways for AchievingCloser Contacts and Unity of Churches in a Pan-Orthodox Perspective’,envisaging the search for contacts with Ancient Eastern (non-Chalcedonian)Churches (Monophysites), the Old Catholic, Anglican, Catholic, andProtestant Churches, as well as the World Council of Churches.”310 In otherwords, the Orthodox were to abandon the struggle against Atheism,Freemasonry and other false religions, and were to engage in dialoguetowards union with all the Christian heretics – while at the same timepersecuting the True Orthodox and using ecumenical forums to further theends of Soviet foreign policy in its struggle with the Capitalist West!311

The argument used by Nicodemus for removing atheism from the agendawas that discussion of this question might elicit persecution against theChurch in Russia. As for Masonry, “it does not exist in contemporary Russia,we don’t know it, Masonry exists only in the West. Consequently, thisquestion is not of general, but only of local Orthodox interest, and for thatreason it should not be included in the programme of a general OrthodoxCouncil…”312

In November, 1961 Archbishop Nicodemus, accompanied by BishopAnthony (Bloom) of Sourozh, the future Patriarch Alexis (Ridiger) and “aRussian government courier who is responsible for their comfort and all theirexpenses”313 , went to New Delhi for the Third General Assembly of the WCC.On December 6-7, the MP was accepted as an official member of the WCC at

309 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 3.310 "The Russian Orthodox Church in the System of Contemporary Christianity", in A.Preobrazhensky (ed.), The Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow: Progress, 1988, p. 387.311 See William C. Fletcher, Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1945-1970 , London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1973, chapter 9.312 Archbishop Basil of Brussels, Vospominania (Reminiscences); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part5, pp. 3-4.313 The Daily Telegraph (London), November 22, 1961.

130

its Third General Assembly in New Delhi. 142 churches voted for, 4 abstainedand 3 voted against.

The Vatican immediately warned that the MP’s membership was aimed “atthe fulfilling of plans hatched in the Kremlin, which are bound to assist thetriumph of Soviet propaganda through ecumenical Christianity”. And sureenough: when an attempt was made to condemn communism, ArchbishopNicodemus immediately proposed a resolution listing the vices of capitalism,as a result of which both resolutions were withdrawn.314

The KGB-enforced entry of the MP into the WCC, which was followed bythe entry of the Romanian Church (in 1961) and of the Georgian Church (in1962), had a devastating effect on the Orthodox position. For the Soviets notonly constituted numerically by far the largest single Church in the WCC;they also controlled, through the KGB, all the other delegates from behind theiron curtain. Communism and Ecumenism therefore met in an unholy unionwhich has been called “Ecucommunism”.315 As Deacon Andrew Kuraievwrites: “Sergianism and Ecumenism intertwined. It was precisely on theinstructions of the authorities that our hierarchy conducted its ecumenicalactivity, and it was precisely in the course of their work abroad that clergywho had been enrolled into the KGB were checked out for loyalty.”316

The Orthodox delegates at New Delhi signed a summary statement whichdeclared, among other things: “We consider that the work of creating the One,Universal Church must unfailingly be accompanied by the destruction anddisappearance of certain outmoded, traditional forms of worship”. The ideaof “creating” the One Church was blasphemous, and the idea of destroyingcertain “outmoded” forms of worship - an outright challenge to the HolyTradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church! And, havingdelivered it, the Orthodox delegates seemed to lose all restraint; for within adecade or two of the New Delhi congress, the ecumenical movement hadclimbed into the realm of “Super-ecumenism” – relations with non-Christianreligions. It was therefore the Congress of the WCC in New Delhi that markedthe decisive dogmatic break between “World Orthodoxy” and TrueOrthodoxy. If, until then, it could be argued, albeit unconvincingly, that the“World Orthodox” had not apostasised, and that only a few of their leaderswere ecumenist heretics, this could no longer be maintained after New Delhi.

The General Assembly of the WCC in New Delhi was closely followed bythe opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, an event as important forecumenism in the West as had been the founding of the WCC.

314 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 5.315 V. Moss, "Ecucommunism", Living Orthodoxy, September-October, 1989, vol. XI, № 5, pp. 13-18.316 Kuraiev, "Vo dni pechal'nie Velikago posta" (During the Sad Days of the Great Fast), Den'(Day), № 13, March 29 / April 4, 1992 ®.

131

Vatican II opened the floodgates to Ecumenism in the western world. For,as Malachi Martin writes: “Before the end of the fourth and final session ofVatican II – presided over by Pope John’s successor, Paul VI – some bishopsand Vatican personnel had already adopted entirely new and innovativemeanings for the idea of ecumenism. The powerful Augustin Cardinal Bea,for example, was a leading figure at the Council and a close adviser to PaulVI, as he had been to Pope John. Bea was seen as the Vatican’s own spearheadin what came to be nothing less than an ecumenical revolution. The Cardinalorganized ‘ecumenical gatherings’ that included not only Roman Catholicsand Protestants as usual, but Jews and Muslims as well. In time, as was onlylogical, Buddhists, Shintoists, animist and a host of other non-Christian andeven non-religious groups would find a place in the poorly and broadlydefined new ‘ecumenism’.”317

During the New Delhi Assembly, Nicodemus announced that the Vaticanhad invited the MP to send observers to the Second Vatican Council; but thatthe MP had laid it down as a condition that there should be “no declarationshostile to our beloved country”. So for most of the next year, the MP chose toemphasise, albeit in a gentle way, the dogmatic differences between the twoChurches. 318 However, in September-October, at the Second Pan-OrthodoxConference on Rhodes, it was decided to begin a theological dialogue with theCatholic Church. Moreover, - still more importantly, - at the beginning ofOctober the Council for Religious Affairs told the Central Committee that theparticipation of observers at the Second Vatican Council would assist theestablishment of useful contacts with the Vatican and would bind the Vaticanin its promotion of hostile activity against the USSR. This official address ofthe Council to the Central Committee completed a process of change inattitude towards the Catholic Church and the question of the presence ofobservers at the Vatican Council from originally negative to a positiverecognition of benefit for the Soviet government and for the MP of animprovement in their relations to the Vatican. The decision to allow thesending of observers to the Second Vatican Council was taken at the highestlevel of Soviet power, the Politburo, on October 10, 1962 (№ 58/30).319

317 Martin, The Keys of this Blood, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990, pp. 258-59.318 Thus in September, 1962 Patriarch Alexis in an interview with a French journalist said thefollowing on the participation of MP representatives at the Second Vatican Council: “TheOrthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are close to each other in the spheres of faith andliturgics, and we believe that those differences that divide them can, with the help of God andmutual good-will, can be overcome in time. In respect of dogmatics, the main points dividingus are the infallibility of the pope and his headship in the Church, some questions ofMariology, the question of the Filioque and some other particularities.” (Zhurnal MoskovskojPatriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), 1962, № 9, pp. 14-16; Monk Benjamin, op.cit., part 5, p. 6).319 Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoj, “I on byl veren do smerti” (He, too, was faithful untodeath); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, pp. 6-7.

132

The arrival of Russian Orthodox observers at the Council producedconsternation in French Catholic circles, which accused the Vatican of “sellingout” to communism.320 But the French communist press was delighted: “Sincethe world socialist system shows its superiority indisputably and enjoys theapproval of many hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer restcontent with crude anti-communism. She has even given an undertaking, onthe occasion of her dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, that thereshould be no direct attack on the communist regime at the Council.”321

Why did the Vatican accept this condition, which so damaged her standingin the anti-communist West? Probably for the same reason that the MP-KGBagreed to send observers – to infiltrate the camp of the enemy. And thepossibility exists that their main agent of infiltration was precisely the MP’sMetropolitan Nicodemus…

This at first sight unlikely hypothesis gains credibility from the career of Fr.Michael Havryliv, a Russian priest who was secretly received into theCatholic Church in 1973. Fr. Serge Keleher writes: “The Capuchin priest toldHavryliv that Metropolitan Nicodemus [of Leningrad] was secretly a Catholicbishop, recognized by Rome with jurisdiction from Pope Paul VI throughoutRussia. This assertion is not impossible – but neither is it entirely proved.

“On September 6 1975 Havryliv made a sacramental general Confessionbefore Metropolitan Nicodemus, who then accepted Havryliv’s monasticvows and profession of Faith to the Apostolic See and the Pope of Rome. KyrNicodemus commanded Havryliv to order his monastic life according to theJesuit Constitutions, and presented him with a copy of this document inRussian. This was all done privately; four days later the Metropolitantonsured Havryliv a monk. On 9 October Kyr Nicodemus ordained Havrylivto the priesthood, without requiring the oaths customary for RussianOrthodox candidates to Holy Orders.

“In 1977 Havryliv was reassigned to the Moscow Patriarchate’sarchdiocese of L’viv and Ternopil… In Havryliv’s final interview with KyrNicodemus, the Metropolitan of Leningrad ‘blessed me and gave meinstructions to keep my Catholic convictions and do everything possible forthe growth of the Catholic cause, not only in Ukraine, but in Russia. TheMetropolitan spoke of the practice of his predecessors – and also asked me tobe prudent.”322

320 Informations Catholiques Internationales (International Catholic Information), January 1, 1963,p. 29; Itinéraires (Journeys), № 7, February, 1963, pp. 177-178; La Croix (The Cross), February15, 1963, p. 5 (F).321 France Nouvelle (New France), January 16-22, 1963, p. 15 (F).322 Serge Keleher, Passion and Resurrection – the Greek Catholic Church in Soviet Ukraine, 1939-1989, Stauropegion, L’viv, 1993, pp. 101-102. Cf. The Tablet, March 20, 1993. Recently, writesLudmilla Perepiolkina, “the Catholic Journal Truth and Life published the memoirs of MiguelArranz, in which this Jesuit, who in Nicodemus’ time taught at the Leningrad Theological

133

These words indicate the truth behind the mask of the Vatican’secumenism; and the fact that Havryliv was reordained by Nicodemus showthat Rome accepted the sacraments of the Orthodox for only as long as itsuited her. The Orthodox were, from Vatican II, not heretics, but “separatedbrethren”. However, the “separated brethren” still had to return inrepentance to their father, the Pope…

The Vatican also decided to invite ROCOR to send observers to theCouncil. This decision, writes Andrew Psarev, “was a precursor to a livelydiscussion of the [ROCOR] council session in 1962, where the so-calleddefensive point of view collided with the ‘missionary’ point of view. Anardent advocate of the ‘defensive’ point of view was Archbishop Averky ofSyracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery, who saw the Second Vatican Councilas a step in the direction of global apostasy. And opposite point of view wasexpressed by Bishop Savva of Edmonton, who saw declining the invitation asa loss of an opportunity to bear witness to the truth using a forum providedan opportunity to talk about Orthodoxy, the situation in the Orthodox world,and about the persecuted Russian Church. The support given by MetropolitanAnastasii to the missionary point of view regarding the sending ofrepresentatives to the Vatican was the last major influence he had on relationsbetween ROCOR and the non-Orthodox world during the period of hisservice as the first hierarch.”323

The Khruschev Persecution

As we have seen, one of the aims of the MP’s entry into the WCC was tomask a new persecution against the MP inside the Soviet Union. The ultimateintention of the Soviet authorities – the complete destruction of the OrthodoxChurch – remained unchanged in the post-war period; but their tacticsshowed some flexibility. The Khrushchev persecution demonstrated howfragile and one-sided was the State-Church accord, and how easily the State’sconcessions could be retracted without compunction or compensation.324

Until the death of Stalin, while True Orthodoxy was persecuted asviolently as ever, “Soviet Orthodoxy” enjoyed a comparatively peacefulperiod. However, on July 7, 1954 the Central Committee of the SovietCommunist Party issued a document entitled “On Major Inadequacies inScientific-Atheist Propaganda and Measures for its Improvement”, whichcalled for a return to the pre-war course of “attacking religious survivals”.That summer some parishioners were persecuted and some churches closed.

Academy, told, among other things, that with Nicodemus’ blessing he celebrated ‘the EasternRite Liturgy’ in Nicodemus’ hosue church at the Leningrad Theological Academy.”(Ecumenism – A Path to Perdition, St. Petersburg, 1 999, p. 276, note.323 Psarev, op. cit., pp. 6-7.324 Pospielovsky, Russkaia Mysl' (Russian Thought), № 3698, 5 November, 1987 ®.

134

Public criticisms of this new course were issued by Metropolitan Gregory ofLeningrad and Archbishop Luke of Simferopol.

However, in November the Central Committee began to change courseagain, in 1955 the number of registered churches began to rise, and in 1956 aprint-run of 50,000 Bibles was permitted.325 Then came Khruschev’s famousspeech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in 1956, at which the cultof the personality of Stalin was condemned. Soon thousands of people whohad been condemned for their religious or political beliefs were returningfrom the camps, including 293 clergy of the MP and unknown number fromthe Catacomb Church. In July G. Karpov informed Patriarch Alexis that hedid not need to worry about the question of the opening of churches, sincethis process would now be uninterrupted…326

On October 4, 1958 the Central Committee sent a secret letter to the UnionRepublics called “On the inadequacies of scientific-atheist propaganda”. In allparty and public organizations and state organs were required to attack theThis fact was forcibly re-imposed upon the consciousness of believers in 1959-64, when most of the seminaries and monasteries and 12-15,000 of the parishchurches,”religious survivals” of Soviet people. In accordance with theinstructions of the Central Committee and of Khruschev personally, onOctober 16 the Council of Ministers accept the first anti-ecclesiasticalresolutions: “On Monasteries in the USSR” and “On Taxing the Income ofEnterprises of Diocesan Administrations, and also the Income ofMonasteries”. In the first of these the monasteries were forbidden to take onhired labour, and a significant diminution of land holdings was envisaged, asalso of the numbers of communities. Moreover, the 1945 tax on building andland rent was re-introduced, and the tax rate on plots of land was sharplyincreased. A heavy blow was dealt to the material base of the patriarchate.Raising the tax on the income from candle factories touched every parish. Thefactories were forced to raise their output prices, but at the same time it wasforbidden to change the old prices in the churches. An absurd situation wasthe result – the parishes, on acquiring the candles, were forced to sell them tothemselves at a loss. To make up for this, in many parishes they began todisband the paid choirs and economize on repairs and the upkeep of thechurches. The clergy fell into poverty. The patriarchate was flooded bydesperate pleas for help from the hierarchs. As a result of the new regulations,all the dioceses found themselves in debt to the state and on the edge ofcomplete insolvency. An appeal was made to the Council for the Affairs of theOrthodox Church, but it was firmly rejected. An appeal to put off theintroduction of the new taxes until January 1, 1959 was also rejected.327

325 A.B. Vinnikov, Ottepel’ 1943-1960 (The Thaw of 1943-1960); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4,pp. 22-23, 24.326 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 27.327 Vinnikov, op. cit.; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, pp. 30-31.

135

In November and December a massive purge of Church libraries wascarried out; many books were removed, and all foreign literature was placedunder censorship. On November 28, the Central Committee accepted aresolution “On Measures to stop pilgrimages to so-called ‘holy places’.”Various methods were used to stop pilgrims visiting 700 such places. In 195891 church communities were deprived of registration; the tolling of bells wasforbidden; hierarchs were deprived of their telephones, churches were cut offfrom the water system, repairs were forbidden.

In January, 1959, at a closed session of the Council for the Affairs of theRussian Orthodox Church, the president, G. Karpov was attacked by I.Sivenkov for having been “too soft” in relation to the Church. In MarchKarpov, having recovered from illness, counter-attacked. He declared: “Outof the 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the world 9 completelysupport the initiatives of the Moscow Patriarchate… Now there is asuggestion to prepare and convene, in the course of one or two years, anEcumenical Council or congress of all the Orthodox Churches in the world…How shall we carry out this work… if we encourage crude administrativemethods in relation to the Church and do not react to the distortions inscientific-atheist propaganda?... I consider such actions as the blowing up ofchurch buildings to be inadmissible.” Karpov went on to speak of the massdiscontent of the clergy, and of the fact that the patriarch was thinking ofretiring; and even suggested making some concessions to the Church. As aresult, he kept his post for another year, and a temporary departure fromextreme forms of anti-religious aggression was observed in the country.328

Nevertheless, by November, thirteen monasteries had been closed, andanother seventeen by January, 1960. In spite of a prior agreement between thepatriarch and the Council for Religious Affairs, some communities wereclosed, not gradually, but almost immediately – sometimes within 24 hours.In this period about 200 clergy were compelled by various means to renouncetheir rank.329

Another aspect of the Khruschev persecution (so called because he was thechief inspirer and strategist of it) was the infiltration of agents into the ranksof the Church. Anatoly Golitsyn, who defected from the KGB in 1961, writes:“As part of the programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in thelate 1950s, started sending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiasticalacademies and seminaries to train them as future church leaders. These youngCommunists joined the Church, not at the call of their consciences to serveGod, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that Party and toimplement its general in the struggle against religion.”330 As regards theordinary priests, Fr. Alexander Borisov writes: “Almost everyone was

328 Vinnikov, op. cit.; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, pp. 32-33.329 Vinnikov, op. cit.330 Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception, London and New York: Edward Harle, 1998, p. 116.

136

recruited into the KGB. I myself was recruited, and I know that our otherpriest, Fr. Vladimir, was also recruited. I think those who say they were notrecruited are deceiving us… After all, in earlier times one could not become abishop without making some compromise, it was simply impossible…”331

Schema-Monk Epiphanius (Chernov) recounts the following story about acommunist party member and his wife, who was secretly a member of theCatacomb Church. When their son was born, she wanted to have himbaptised – but not in the Moscow patriarchate. He then “tried to convince hiswife of a truth which she was well aware. But in the given case the husband’swords were very convincing and concrete:

“’So you have firmly decided to baptise the child?’

“’Yes, of course!’

“Well, that’s your affair. Only I would like to introduce into this matter acertain correction or rationalisation.’

“’Please, I’m listening.’

“’Well, here it is. Tell me, please, have you saved an extra seven rubleswhich you’re intending to give our ‘pope’ or ‘priest’? If they are extra, givethem to me, and I will drink them away, and I’ll baptise the child for you…Tell me, what’s the difference: either he’ll drink them away, or I will. He and Iare absolutely the same. And we sit next to each other at party gatherings….Whether you give the child to him to be baptised or to me, we are bothatheists. So it would be better and more humane for you to give the sevenrubles to your atheist husband that to an atheist stranger. And listen: yourhusband is more righteous and decent that that atheist. After all, he pretendsto be a believer. But he’s an atheist! Moreover, he pretends so much that he’seven become a priest! While I, honourably and in the sight of all, am anatheist! But I can baptise our child with the same effect as he… Well, tell me,have I convinced you?’”332

While Patriarch Alexis and Metropolitan Nicholas protested against thepersecution, they remained completely loyal to Soviet power. Thus inJanuary, 1960, Karpov wrote to the Central Committee: “The patriarch iscompletely loyal with regards to the authorities, always and not only inofficial declarations, but also in his entourage he speaks sincerely and withexaltation about the government and Comrade Khruschev. The patriarch doesnot pay enough attention to work abroad, but even here he accepts all ourrecommendations…”333

331 Krasikov, op. cit., p. 204.332 Chernov, op. cit.333 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 37.

137

Meanwhile, the pressure on the MP was increasing. On March 16, 1961 theCouncil of Ministers passed a resolution “On the strengthening of control forthe fulfilment of the legislation on churches”, which gave power to the localauthorities to close churches and remove registrations. On April 18, 1961 theMP Synod decided to present the resolution “On Measures to Improve theExisting Order of Parish Life” for discussion at the Council in July. Thismeasure, which had been imposed on the Church by the Council for ReligiousAffairs, deprived the priest of all financial and administrative control of hisparish, passing it instead to councils of twenty (the dvadtsatky), which wereeasily controllable by the authorities.

As Victor Aksyuchits writes, this “reform” “presented them with newpossibilities for destroying the organism of the Church from within. Thepriests were completely separated from the economic and financialadministration of the parishes, and were only hired by agreement as ‘servantsof the cult’ for ‘the satisfaction of religious needs’. The diocesan organs ofadministration of the life of the parishes were suspended… Now the atheistauthorities not only carried out the ‘registration’ of the priests and ‘theexecutive organs’, but also took complete control of the economy and financesof the parishes, appointing the wardens and treasurers, and using all theirrights, naturally, to promote the atheists’ aim of destroying the Church.”334

Fearing that the July Council might oppose this “reform”, the authoritiesdid not invite to the Council three hierarchs who had expressed themselvesagainst it. Most of the hierarchs were invited, not to a Council, but to acelebration in honour of St. Sergius, and were amazed to learn that a Councilwas about to be conducted. 335 Archbishop Hermogen of Kaluga, whoappeared without an invitation, was not allowed at the session on thegrounds that he was not a ruling hierarch. In the absence of all potentialopponents, the parish reform was passed. It was also decided that all clergyshould be banned from becoming members of the dvadtsatky or the parishcouncils. Patriarch Alexis cooperated with the parish statute and with othermeasures harmful to the Church during the Khrushchev persecution.336

Meanwhile, in the single year of 1961, 1500 churches were closed in theSoviet Union. In 1963 the Kiev-Caves Lavra was closed. Attempts were madeto close the Pochaev Lavra, too, but determined action by the monks and thelocal inhabitants, some of whom were imprisoned or exiled, saved the day.337

334 Aksyuchits, "70 let Vavilonskogo plenenia" (70 Years of Babylonian Captivity), VestnikRusskogo Khristianskogo Dvizhenia (Herald of the Russian Christian Movement), 1988, № 152 ®. 335 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, pp. 1-2.336 G. Pankov, "O politike Sovetskogo gosudarstva v otnoshenii Russkoj pravoslavnoj tserkvina rubezhe 50-60-x godov" (On the Politics of the Soviet State in relation to the RussianOrthodox Church on the border of the 50s and 60s), in Bessmertny, A.R. & Filatov, S.B.,Religia i Demokratia (Religion and Democracy), Moscow: Progress, 1993, pp. 217-31 ®.337 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, pp. 15-16.

138

On October 14, 1964, Khruschev died, and the persecution against the MPceased. The main party ideologist and secretary of the Central Committee,Suslov thought that it was necessary to continue a decisive “struggle againstreligion”, but in such a way as not to turn the West against them and “not togive rein to all kinds of extremists”. It was recognised that illegalities hadbeen committed, and several people were freed from the prisons andcamps.338

The Passportless Movement

By the beginning of the 1960s, the pressure on the Catacomb Church wasbeginning to wane. Thus “when, in 1961,” writes Archbishop Lazarus, “thepriests’ rights were taken away from them and given to the church council,they quieted down and it was easier for us; at least we could get to our priestsand priests began more freely to come to us, to confess and commune us.From 1961 the Moscow Patriarchate calmed down in its attitude towards us.Of course, when foreigners asked representatives of the M.P., ‘Does acatacomb church exist?’ the answer was always ‘No’. That was a lie. Therewere catacomb believers all over Russia, just as there are today…”339

The relaxation of pressure from the patriarchate was almost certainly aresult of the fact that the patriarchate was now the object of persecution itself.Although the numbers of believers killed and imprisoned was only a fractionof the numbers in earlier persecutions, the Khrushchev persecution of 1959-64closed some thousands of patriarchal churches and forced many patriarchalpriests to serve illegally. These “pseudo-catacombs” did not merge with theTrue Church and continued to commemorate the Soviet patriarch.340

However, another government measure of this period served to swell thenumbers of the True Orthodox Church considerably. In 1961 new legislationagainst secret Christians was passed, of which the most important was thelegislation on passports. Now passportisation had been introduced into theSoviet Union only in 1932, and only for the most urbanized areas. Alreadythen it was used as a means of winkling out Catacomb Christians. Thus M.V.Shkarovsky writes: “Completing their liquidation of the Josephites, there wasa meeting of regional inspectors for cultic matters on March 16, 1933, at a timewhen passportisation was being introduced. The meeting decided, on theorders of the OGPU, ‘not to give passports to servants of the cult of theJosephite confession of faith’, which meant automatic expulsion fromLeningrad. Similar things happened in other major cities of the USSR.”341

338 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 19.339 "Out of the Catacombs", op. cit., p. 6.340 See Danilushkin, op. cit., chapter 18.341 Shkarovsky, Iosiflyanstvo (Josephitism) , op. cit., p. 171. Cf. Edward Roslof: “Passport officeswere prohibited from issuing documents to clergy; that duty belonged to a troika from the

139

Almost all the Catacomb hierarchs refused to bless their spiritual childrento take passports because in filling in the forms the social origins and recordof Christians was revealed, making them liable to persecution. 342 SomeCatacomb leaders, such as Schema-Abbess Michaela of Kiev, sent her nunsout to convince people that the passport was the seal of the Antichrist. ManyCatacomb Christians refused passports and lived illegally without passportsof registration, not wishing to declare themselves citizens of the antichristiankingdom.343

In the 1930s the peasants had not been given passports but were chained tothe land which they worked. They were herded into the collective farms andforced to do various things against their conscience, such as vote for thecommunist officials who had destroyed their way of life and their churches.Those who refused to do this – refusals were particularly common in theLipetsk, Tambov and Voronezh areas – were rigorously persecuted, and oftenleft to die of hunger. Thus passportisation in the cities and collectivisation inthe countryside constituted two forms of the Bolsheviks’ struggle to forceeveryone in the country to accept the Soviet ideology.

On May 4, 1961, however, the Soviet government issued its decree on“parasitism” and introduced its campaign for general passportisation. In localpapers throughout the country it was announced that, in order to receive aSoviet passport, a citizen of the USSR would have to recognize all the laws ofSoviet power, past and present, beginning from Lenin’s decrees. Since thisinvolved, in effect, a recognition of all the crimes of Soviet power, amovement arose to reject Soviet passports, a movement which was centredmainly in the country areas among those peasants and their families who hadrejected collectivization in the 1930s.

E.A. Petrova writes: “Protests against general passportisation arose amongChristians throughout the vast country. A huge number of secret Christianswho had passports began to reject, destroy and burn them and loudly, for allto hear, renounce Soviet citizenship. Many Christians from the patriarchalchurch also gave in their passports. There were cases in which as many as 200people at one time went up to the local soviet and gave in their passports. Inone day the whole of a Christian community near Tashkent gave in 100passports at once. Communities in Kemerovo and Novosibirsk provinces

regional soviet. Passports would not be issued to men with degrees from theologicalseminaries or academies, to priests associated with the Josephite schism, or to conductors ofchurch choirs (even if they were amateurs)” (Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, andRevolution, 1905-1946, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002, p. 182).342 See Danilushkin, op. cit., p. 535; M.V. Shkvarovsky, Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ priStaline i Khruscheve (The Russian Orthodox church under Stalin and Khruschev), Moscow, 2005, p.p. 246 ®..343 A. Smirnov, “Ugasshie nepominaiuschie v bege vremeni” (Extinguished Non-Commemorators in the Flow of Time), Simvol (Symbol), № 40, 1998, p. 254 ®.

140

gave in their passports, and Christians in the Altai area burned theirpassports… Protests against general passportisation broke out in Belorussia,in the Ukraine, and in the Voronezh, Tambov and Ryazan provinces…

“Christians who renounced their Soviet passports began to be seized,imprisoned and exiled. But in spite of these repressions the movement of thepassportless Christians grew and became stronger. It was precisely in theseyears that the Catacomb Church received a major influx from Christians ofthe patriarchal church who renounced Soviet passports and returned into thebosom of the True Orthodox Church.”344

In the 1970s the detailed questionnaires required in order to receivepassports were abandoned, but in 1974 it was made obligatory for all Sovietcitizens to have a passport, and a new, red passport differing significantlyfrom the old, green one was issued for everyone except prisoners and thehospitalized. Its cover had the words: “Passport of a citizen of the SovietSocialist Republics”, together with a hammer and sickle, which was stillunacceptable to the passportless, who therefore continued to be subject toprison, exile and hunger. Those who joined the Catacomb Church at this timeoften erased the word “citizen”, replacing it with the word “Christian”, sothat they had a “Passport of a Christian of the Soviet Socialist Republics”.345

The issue of passports came down to the question whether the Soviet Statecan be considered “Caesar” to which “the things of Caesar” are due (paymentof taxes, civic loyalty, army service), or “the collective Antichrist”, obedienceto whom involves compromises that are unacceptable for the Christianconscience. Although the majority of members of the True Russian Church inthis century have not made an issue of this, it remains debatable whetherobedience to the 1918 anathema against the Bolsheviks does not in fact requirerejection of the Soviet State, Soviet passports, Soviet army service, etc., in away that only the passportless demonstrated. Certainly, experiencedemonstrated without a doubt that all attempts of Christians to cooperate inany way with the Soviet regime were worse than useless and only led tocompromises in the faith… Since the fall of communism in 1991, as we shallsee, the possession of passports has ceased to be such a burning issue.However, the question whether the Soviet Union was a state “established byGod” (Romans 13.1), or, on the contrary, an anti-state established by Satan(Revelation 13.2), remains a critical one. The True Orthodox position is thatsince the Soviet Union was anathematised by the Church, neither it, nor anymodern state claiming continuity from it, can command the allegiance ofOrthodox Christians.

344 E.A. Petrova, "Perestroika Vavilonskoj Bashni – poslednij shans veslukavogo antikhrista"(The Reconstruction of the Tower of Babel – the last Chance of the All-Cunning Antichrist),Moscow, 1991, pp. 5-6 (MS) ®. Cf. Mervyn Matthews, The Passport Society, Oxford: WestviewPress, 1993, chapter 3.345 Bishop Ambrose, "Gosudarstvo i 'katakomby'", op. cit., p. 104.

141

The Florinites Acquire a Hierarchy

After the repose of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina, on September 16,1955, 92 of his 150 priests gathered together and established a twelve-memberCommission to administer the Church. On January 10, 1957 a second ClericalAssembly was held, attended by all the Flornite priests and several zealotmonks from Mount Athos. A new twelve-member commission was appointedand three archimandrites – Acacius (Pappas), Chrysostom (Kiousis) andChrysostom (Naslimes) – were voted worthy of receiving the episcopal rank.Acacius was elected president of the Commission, Auxentius Pastras – deputypresident, and general secretary – Chrysostom (Kiousis). The Commissionthen began to search for a way of restoring their hierarchy.346

The Florinites finally succeeded in the following way. First,Archimandrites Acacius Pappas (the nephew of Acacius the elder) andChrysostom Kiousis were sent to ROCOR’s Archbishop John Maximovich inBrussels. He looked favourably on their request, but said that they wouldneed to obtain the blessing of the ROCOR Synod in New York. The Florinitesthen sent Archimandrite Acacius the elder to Metropolitan Anastasy in NewYork. But the metropolitan refused to consecrate him.

Nun Vassa writes that “at the Council of 1959, following the opinion ofMetropolitan Anastasy, the Council decided to once again decline the requestof the Old Calendarists. While considering this matter, the opinion wasexpressed that through the principle of oikonomia, they could help theirGreek brethren. Metropolitan Anastasy rejected this oikonomia, finding thatthe ordination of a bishop in this instance would not be constructive butdestructive for the Church, first of all because of the condemnations such anact would invoke among the other Local Churches and the MoscowPatriarchate.”347 So vital brotherly help to the persecuted Greeks was refusedon the grounds that it would irritate the heretics of World Orthodoxy…

In December, 1960 Archimandrite Acacius again arrived at the ROCORSynod with his nephew, Archimandrite Acacius, and was again refused.According to the account given to the present author by Acacius the younger,

346 I Phoni tis Orthodoxias (The Voice of Orthodoxy), № 272, October, 1957, reprinted in № 928, May-June, 2004, pp. 8-9; Monk Anthony Georgantas, Opheilomene Apantesis se Kakoetheis kaianistoretes Epikriseis (A Necessary Reply to Malicious and Unhistorical Criticisms), Gortyna:Monastery of St. Nicodemus, 1992, p. 8; Khristianike Poreia (The Christian Way), March, 1992, p.5 (G). See also Irenée Doens, "Les Palaioimérologites: Alerte pour leurs Monastères" (The OldCalendarists: An Alert for their Monasteries), Irénikon, 1973, № 1, pp. 48-49 (F).347 Nun Vassa (Larin), “The Ecclesiastical Principle of oikonomia and the ROCOR underMetropolitan Anastasy”, Report at the Conference on the History of the Russian Church,November, 2002 ®. Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kition (Cyprus) told the present writer thatwhen he visited New York in the 1960s, Metropolitan Anastasy had refused his request onthe grounds that it would upset Constantinople…

142

Metropolitan Anastasy refused to participate himself in the consecration ofAcacius the elder for fear of upsetting the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but didnot discourage the consecration in another city and at the hands of otherbishops. According to other sources, however, the metropolitan had insistedthat no ROCOR bishop take part in such a consecration.348

In any case, on December 22, 1960, Archimandrite Acacius Pappas wasconsecrated as Bishop of Talantion in Detroit, by Archbishop Seraphim ofChicago and the Romanian Bishop Theophilus of Detroit. For this actArchbishop Seraphim was reprimanded by the ROCOR Synod. Moreover, theMatthewites bitterly contested its canonicity, saying that Acacius the elderhad bribed Seraphim. But this accusation is firmly rejected by Acacius theyounger (now Metropolitan of Diauleia), who accompanied his unclethroughout the trip.349 The Matthewites also asserted that Theophilus was anew calendarist, having been appointed to look after the new calendaristRomanian parishes which had joined the Russian Synod. This was true, butdid not necessarily invalidate the consecration because he was a member of aSynod which followed the Orthodox Calendar. In other words, his followingthe new calendar was uncanonical, but insofar as he was a member of a TrueOrthodox Synod which, for reasons of pastoral condescension, tolerated it fora certain group, he was to be considered a true bishop. Another problem wasthe fact that in 1971, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret, Bishop Theophilusdenied that he had taken part in the consecration. However, his participationwas witnessed both by Archbishop Seraphim 350 , and by the then

348 Lardas, op. cit., p. 17.349 Metropolitan Acacius, personal communication, May, 1985.350 See Archbishop Seraphim's letter of October 26, 1971 to Archbishop Auxentius: “Becauserecently, discussions are again arising concerning the ordination of the late Akakios Papasand as there is mention of my name, I would like to make the following points.

“Bishop Akakios was ordained bishop by my unworthiness and the Rumanian bishopTheophilus. I did not ordain bishop Akakios alone. The ordination took place in Detroit,Michigan and in the Cathedral Church of bishop Theophilus. There are eyewitnesses who arestill alive, who were present during the ordination, that is, the then Archimandrites nowBishops Akakios and Peter. Therefore the ordination certificate which bears my signature isaccurate as far as it mentions that my unworthiness and another bishop performed theordination. The second bishop is not mentioned and did not sign the ordination certificatebecause both bishop Theophilus and bishop Akakios for personal reasons did not publiclymake known the incident.

“ As far as my participation is concerned: I explained to the then candidate ArchimandriteAkakios that owing to the prohibition of his being ordained by my Synod, (that) bishopTheophilus would assist so that there be a second bishop present for the ordination. Iexplained to all who were interested, that bishop Theophilus followed the New Calendar,even though there existed a few communities adhering to the Old Calendar under hisjurisdiction. The cathedral church in Detroit celebrates with the New Calendar. I did not hidethis fact from bishop Akakios. His reply was that there was an extremely urgent need for abishop for Greece and that he had to return as bishop, thus consenting to bishop Theophilusparticipation in the ordination he would overlook the fact that he celebrated with the NewCalendar.

“If Bishop Theophilus now denies his participation in the ordination, he himself bears theresponsibility. I cannot place his signature in the Ordination Certificate. Bishop Akakios

143

Archimandrites Peter and Acacius the younger. According to Seraphim,Theophilus had personal reasons for keeping the whole matter secret.351

On returning to Greece, Bishop Acacius undertook the administration ofthe Church with the aid of one of the Commission’s archimandrites. In May,1962, Bishop Acacius and the Commission invited Archbishop Leontius ofChile, a member of the ROCOR Synod. These two bishops then consecrated:Parthenius (Skurlis) as Bishop of the Cyclades, Auxentius (Pastras) as Bishopof Gardikion, Acacius the younger as Bishop of Diauleia and Gerontius(Margiolis) as Bishop of Salamis. It was also decreed that the newlyconsecrated bishops should consecrate Archimandrites Chrysostom(Naslimes) and Chrysostom (Kiousis). Chrysostom (Naslimis) was dulyconsecrated the next year.

“Archbishop Leontius’ involvement with the Old Calendarists did not endthere. Together with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad’s BishopSeraphim of Caracas, he secretly consecrated Archimandrite Peter Astifides asbishop of Astoria [in Venezuela]. This, too, was done without the knowledgeor consent of either the Synod or Metropolitan Anastasy.

“Later Archbishop Leontius ordained Acacius Douskos a priest in NewYork. This Acacius was a subdeacon of Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal, and hewas ordained without Archbishop Vitaly’s consent. Later he returned toMontreal where he set up a Greek Old Calendar parish independent ofArchbishop Vitaly.”352

accepted the ordination knowing well back then that bishop Theophilus was not going to signany certificate whatsoever. The responsibility therefore for the present confusion rests withthe late bishop Akakios and those with him.

“Now, with the written denial of bishop Theophilus that he did not take part in theordination, the situation becomes complicated and a canonical issue concerning theordination is created. I'm truly sorry for this, but who would have foreseen or imagined thepresent development of the whole matter?” (Hieromonk Amphilochius, Gnosesthe tenAletheian (Know the Truth), op. cit., pp. 43-48)351 Bishop Theophilus had been the leader of the Romanian new calendarist church in Parisduring the war, and had refused to return to Romania after the war because of thecommunism ruling there. In 1953 he was consecrated to the episcopate, with the blessing ofMetropolitan Anastasy, by ROCOR’s Archbishop John Maximovich, Bishop Nathaniel ofVienna and Metropolitan Visarion Puiu, another Romanian anti-communist who had beenreceived into ROCOR in 1953. In 1972 Bishop Theophilus returned to the Romanianpatriarchate (they recognized his consecration). However, the people and clergy remained inROCOR until 1998, when Metropolitan Vitaly expelled them because they were still on thenew calendar. A few years later, Archbishop Barnabas of Western Europe reversedMetropolitan Vitaly’s decision, and received two Romanian priests back again. See MonkBenjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 21; Fr. Anthimus (Bichir), “Re: [paradosis] Bishop TheophilIonescu”, [email protected], 20 March, 2004.352 Lardas, op. cit., p. 17. On the controversy surrounding Peter's consecration, whichMetropolitan Philaret later annulled, see Tserkovnie Novosti (Church News), February, 1995, № 43, p. 1; 1996, № 2, pp. 2-3 ®.

144

For some years the ROCOR Synod did not recognize the consecrationscarried out by Archbishops Seraphim and Leontius… But during the ROCORHierarchical Council on November 17/30, 1962, Archbishop Averky ofSyracuse and Jordanville said: “I myself would not have decided to carry outthe consecration of the Greek Old Calendarists. But at the same time, in thedepths of my soul, I cannot help being delighted at the boldness with whichArchbishop Leontius carried out this act to which his conscience called him.

“We emphasize that we do not recognize Patriarch Alexis, while all thepatriarchs recognize him. We talk about communion with these patriarchs,and thereby we turn out paradoxically to be in communion with Moscow. Avicious circle is the result. In view of this irrational position, it is especiallyimportant for us to stand on a firm canonical foundation, preserving theessence, and not the letter, which can lead to the worship of Satan…

“He [Vladyka Leontius] carried out a courageous act of assistance to afraternal Church, which is now the closest to us in spirit. The Greek Church isnow attacked and persecuted. It was a great mistake that we in our time weretoo condescending to the introduction of the new style, for its aim was tointroduce schism into the Orthodox Church. It was the work of the enemies ofthe Church of Christ. Its fruits are already evident. Even in America there areGreek clergy whose conscience torments them for accepting the new style.The keeping of various traditions in various spheres is bound up withfollowing the old style. With the expulsion of the old style from the churchthe ascetic principle is also expelled. The Old Calendarists are the closest to usin spirit. The only ‘but’ in the action of Archbishop Leontius consists in thefact that he acted as it were in a non-fraternal manner, contrary to the decisionof the council, although from good motives.”353

At the same session Archbishop John Maximovich noted: “… The OldCalendarists have been knocking on our doors for six years. The HierarchicalCouncil cannot take the decision upon itself, since it recognizes that this is aninternal matter of the Greeks. We must accept Archbishop Leontius’explanation as satisfactory, and with that bring our arguments to an end.”

Vladyka John also recalled that in the past century there had been similardisturbances in the Antiochian Church. At that time the ConstantinopolitanChurch had intervened. In the same way the Greek Church had helped theChurch of Cyprus. The Council expressed its regret to Archbishop Leontiuswith regard to his participation in the consecrations of the bishops for theGreek Old Calendarists. Archbishop Leontius, in his turn, expressed hisregret that he had not been able to ask Metropolitan Anastasy.354

353 Andrei Psarev, "Vospominania Arkhiepiskopa Leontia Chilijskago" (Reminiscences ofArchbishop Leontius of Chile), Pravoslavnaia Zhizn' (Orthodox Life), № 5 (557), May, 1996, pp. 11-12 ®.354 Psarev, op. cit., p. 12.

145

The Romanians Acquire a Hierarchy

After the war, the Romanian Old Calendarists led by Hieromonk Glyceriuscontinued to be fiercely persecuted. Nevertheless, as Metropolitan Cyprianwrites, “the work of building churches was begun anew, since all of thoseformerly built had been demolished. In as short an interval of time, betweenthe end of the war and 1950, almost all of the razed churches, as well as theruins of the Monastery of Dobru, had been rebuilt. Between 1947 and 1948,the large Monastery of Slatioara (for men) was constructed, along with themonasteries of Bradatel Neamt and Bradatel Suceava (both for women).”355

Metropolitan Blaise writes: “In 1947 some people from our village went toArchimandrite Glycerius and said: something like freedom has come. Thepoint was that the communists at first tried to win over the people to theirside. They told them that they could come out of the woods and build amonastery. And in 1947 they built the monastery of Slatioara – the spiritualcentre of our Church.

“It is difficult to say whether our position got worse under the communistsor not. But essentially things remained the same – the persecutions continued.The communists destroyed only eight of our churches – not all of them. Theywere comparatively moderate.

“Before the war the Church was almost completely annihilated. Before thecoming of the communists in 1944 we were accused of being Bolsheviksbecause we had the same calendar as the ‘Russians’. Under the communists,after 1944, they called us followers of Antonescu, Iron Guardists, fascists,enemies of the people. In fact we took part in no political movements orparties. We entered into agreements neither with the civil authorities, norwith the monarchy, nor with the Iron Guardists, nor with the communists,nor with the Masons…

“1947-52 was a period of comparative freedom. The communist authoritieseven compelled the official church to return to us the icons, iconostases, bellsand church utensils which they had removed. But in 1952, at two o’clock inthe night of February 1st to 2nd, two lorries loaded with security police came tothe monastery and arrested almost all the young monks together with theigumen, sparing only the very aged. They were sentenced to two years’imprisonment. Four of them died in camp.”356

355 Metropolitan Cyprian, "The True Orthodox Christians of Romania", The Orthodox Word,January-February, 1982, vol. 18, № 1 (102).356 Metropolitan Blaise, Pravoslavnaia Rus'(Orthodox Russia), № 2 (1479), 15/28 January, 1993,pp. 8-9 ®.

146

“The aim of this raid,” writes Constantin Bujor, “was to destroy theorganization of the Old Calendarist Church, to put a stop to her activities, andthus to abolish her. Arrests were carried out in an abusive manner because theSecuritate had unlimited powers – it was a manifestation of Communisttotalitarianism under the notorious ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ promotednationwide by the Romanian Workers’ Party. During these years, thousandsof arrests were made without any legal warrant in order to populate theforced labor camps. But the inhuman treatment of those detained in prisonsand labor camps – the nation’s leaders had always turned a blind eye to theseabuses – had a negative impact on foreign relations for Romania, which wasstriving at the time to become a member of the United Nations. In order toextricate themselves from this mess, the Communist leaders sought ascapegoat by organizing a secret trial for a group of officers in charge of thelabor camps. One of these officers, Cormoşfrom Cluj, testified that the officersdid not consider themselves culpable, since they were under direct order fromthe higher authorities, who now were trying to wash their hands of any guilt.Needless to say, the leadership of the country accepted no culpability, andinstead condemned the officers either to death or to years of harshimprisonment. Then, in 1954, after two years, all of the Old Calendaristsarrested were set free, together with numerous other political prisoners.

“While the clergy and some of the Faithful of the Old Calendar Churchwere serving time in prisons and labor camps, in Ardeal more and morebelievers were returning to the Church Calendar…

“[Nevertheless,] a careful analysis of the situation demonstrated that thepersecution was now being intensified, especially against the leaders of theChurch, who had already undergone years of harsh imprisonment and othersufferings at the hands of the previous regime. In order to ensure continuityin the leadership, it became necessary to Ordain Priests and Hierarchs to takeup the banner of the struggle for the truth. The presence of a Hierarch wasabsolutely indispensable for the Old Calendar Church. To this end, contactwas established with Bishop Galaction in Bucharest, who had in the pastexpressed his attachment to the Old Calendar, for which he had beencondemned at the time of the German Occupation during the First WorldWar.357 He promised that when conditions at the Slătioara Monastery werefavourable, he would come and assume the leadership of the Old CalendarChurch. Thus, a delegation of Priests who formed part of the leadership andwere personally known to Bishop Galaction was sent to Bucharest – Father

357 Bishop Ambrose of Methone writes: “[Galaction] was Bishop of Silistre, which after thewar was, with Southern Dobrodgea, ceded to Bulgaria. He was thus left without a diocese,and having been the confessor of the royal family, was a persona non grata who could notpossibly be appointed to another see. He was thus a bishop in retirement, who continued toserve as invited (he in fact consecrated Teoctist, the present Patriarch, bishop) until 1955”(personal communication, 28 August, 2005). (V.M.)

147

Dionisie, Father Evloghie, and Father (later Metropolitan) Silvestru -, andpersuaded him to come to Slătioara Monastery.”358

On April 5/18, 1955 Bishop Galaction publicly declared in a letter to thenewcalendarist synod that he had accepted to be the head of the OldCalendarist Church, and on May 8/21 he arrived in Slătioara Monastery,where the people greeted him with the cry: “Axios!”, “He is worthy!” Thuswas fulfilled a prophetic vision that Hieromonk Glycerius had had during thewar, while in a forest being pursued by enemies: “It was night. Before him, hesaw a beautiful Church. Metropolitan Galacteon (Cordun)… appeared.Vladyka was holding Icons and a Cross in his hands, and he was giving eachbeliever in the Church an Icon. When he reached the pious Father Glycherie,he gave him the Cross.”359

In November Metropolitan Galaction and Fr. Glycherie (who wastemporarily free), were summoned to the police to register and legalise theChurch. The faithful were against them going, sensing a trap, but themetropolitan insisted. The result: he was placed under house arrest in themonastery of St. Callinicus at Cernica, while Fr. Glycherie was exiled.However, under the pretext of visiting his doctor, the metropolitan wentseveral times to Moarea Domneasca, which belonged to the Old Calendarists,and consecrated two bishops (Evloghie and Meftodie360) and several priests.When this was discovered, about a year later, he was placed under strongerobservation in Căldăruşani Monastery. But on Good Friday, 1959,Metropolitan Galaction was abducted by Fr. Pavel Mogârzan, Georghe Hincuand the advocate Albu, disguised as Securitate agents. He arrived the nextday in Slătioara.361

This was not the first dramatic abduction carried out by the Romanian OldCalendarists in this period. “During the night of November 17, 1956,Archimandrite Glycerius, who had been abducted from his forced labour, wassecretly consecrated a bishop [in Moara Domnească]. Then they hid in our

358 Bujor, Resisting unto Blood: Sixty-Five Years of Persecution of the True (Old Calendar) OrthodoxChurch of Romania (October 1924 – December 1989), Etna, CA: Center for TraditionalistOrthodox Studies, 2003, pp. 113-114, 115-116.359 Metropolitan Blaise, The Life of the Holy Hierarch and Confessor Glycherie of Romania, Etna,Ca.: Center for Traditionalist Studies, 1999, p. 50.360 Bishop Evloghie was consecrated in 1955 and died in 1978. He had previously spent sevenyears in prison after declaring his adherence to the True Orthodox Church, and spent 14 yearsin prison in all. Bishop Meftodie was consecrated in 1956 and died in 1977. MetropolitanGalaction himself died in 1959. See Foi Transmise et Sainte Tradition (Transmitted Faith and HolyTradition), № 79, November, 1994, p. 15 (F) ; Bujor, op. cit., pp. 133-145..361 “When, two or three hours [after the abduction], the patriarch phoned to find out what themetropolitan was doing, they told him that two officers of the security police had taken him.The patriarch shouted: ‘I didn’t send any officers!’ But the metropolitan was already faraway.” (Metropolitan Blaise, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, op. cit.) Cf. Bujor, op. cit., pp. 126-127;Metropolitan Cyprian, op. cit., pp. 8-9; Stefan and Girgiu Hîncu, personal communication,September, 1994; Bishop Ambrose, personal communication, May, 2006.

148

monastery [of Slătioara], where every day ordinations took place. A year laterthey were again arrested.”362

At about this time, the future Bishop Pahomie “and Hierodeacon Paisie(Urdă) travelled to Alba County to celebrate the Feast of Saint Nicholas at oneof the Churches there. It was soon after the anti-Communist uprising in theThird Hungarian Revolution (October 10/23-October 22/November 4, 1956),had been crushed by Soviet tanks. The Romanian Securitate was monitoringall activities, making arrests, and trying and sentencing individuals. Theintention of the monks was apparently known to Securitate forces, because onthe way to Râmeţ, Fathers Pahomie and Paisie were detained and taken toSecuritate headquarters in Alba Iulia. After a few hours of interrogation, theFathers were transported later than same night to Aiud, where, the next day,the interrogation continued. The monks began a hunger strike to protest theirinnocence. After five days of questioning, Father Pahomie was granted avision at night in his cell, in which the Holy Hieromartyr Cyprian (+304)appeared to him and said, ‘Brother, why have you been arrested, and why areyou so distressed?’ Father Pahomie replied that he was distressed because hehad been illegally detained. Saint Cyprian told him not to be upset, but topray to him, and they would be allowed to go home. With much difficulty,Father Pahomie succeeded in communicating his vision to Father Paisie, andboth agreed to spend the whole night in prayer. In the morning, they wereinterrogated once more, signed the transcripts, and were then taken to theprosecutor’s office. After their dossiers had been examined, the monks werereleased, although by that time it was too late for them to perform the DivineServices for Saint Nicholas’ Day as they had planned…

“The monks returned to Bucharest, where they celebrated the DivineServices for Theophany. The news that in the Bucharest area a ‘hotbed’ of OldCalendarists had been established under the leadership of Bishop Evloghieswiftly reached the Patriarchate, which in turn notified the Securitate. Thus,Father Pahomie and Father Paisie were arrested again, while BishopEvloghier went into hiding. Taken back to Aiud, where only two monthsearlier they had been set free, they were sentenced to eight months inprison…”363

After being abducted from captivity, Metropolitan Galaction “returned toSlatioara, where he was so weighed down with his sufferings that he wasunable to serve the Divine Liturgy”, and died on July 12, 1959.364 “The

362 Metropolitan Blaise, op. cit.363 Bujor, op. cit., pp. 148-149.364 “Saint Glicherie the Confessor, Metropolitan of Romania, 1881-1985”, typescript of theMonastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece, July, 1999. Bishop Ambrose ofMethone writes: “Metropolitan Vlasie, who looked after [Galaction] remembers that he had astroke six days before his death and was unconscious during that time; only his right handmoved, constantly passing the knots of his prayer-rope… He was buried secretly at night,

149

majority of the clergy who had been ordained were however arrested, andwere not finally liberated until the amnesty of 1963, when Ceaucescu came topower. In 1958, the Romanian authorities ordered that all the monks under 60and all the nuns under 55 should leave their monasteries, but, as always inthese cases, the order had to be given through the local Metropolitans. Thoseof the new calendar complied (with one exception) and thousands of monksand nuns found themselves on the streets after a lifelong in their monasteries;the authorities, however, met with an absolute refusal from Saint Glicherie,who declared himself happy to return to prison rather than betray thoseunder his care. Before this, the authorities bowed, though harassment of themonasteries continued, and several monasteries were closed by force…”365

One of those who suffered at this time was Father (now Bishop)Demosthenes (Ionita): “In 1957 Metropolitan Glycerius ordained him to thepriesthood. Within a month after his ordination, Fr. Demosthenes went toBucharest to assist Bishop Eulogius who was in hiding. There he wasbetrayed by an Old Calendar priest and arrested. The authorities demandedthat Fr. Demosthenes reveal the whereabouts of the bishop, which he refusedto do.

“On July 23, 1958, Fr. Demosthenes was again arrested. He, with a group ofchanters, had served a funeral for his cousin in a closed church. A NewCalendar priest reported this to the authorities, which resulted in his and thechanters’ arrest. Six officers took Fr. Demosthenes to the city Tirgu-Mures.Upon his arrival, he was led to a room where several guards took off hisclothes, and later shaved off his hair and bear. His prison cell had a cementbed with no covers. For five months the civil authorities investigated andinterrogated Fr. Demosthenes in an attempt to find some excuse to have himsentenced. The first round of questioning went along these lines:

“Interrogator: What activity does Glycherius have in this country? Whatmeasures does he plan against the Communists?

“Fr. Demosthenes: The Metropolitan teaches us to work, pray, and obeythe laws of the state.

“Interrogator: Where are you hiding your guns?

“Fr. Demosthenes: Our guns are our church books.

“Chief Interrogator: Why doesn’t he tell us where the guns are? Hang him!

and a load of concrete poured into the grave, for fear lest the new calendarists should take hisbody” (private communications, August 28, 2005, May 3, 2006).365 “Saint Glicherie the Confessor”, op. cit. About 4000 monastics were expelled from theircommunities.

150

“At this point Fr. Demosthenes lost consciousness and fell to the floor.When he awoke, he found himself in his cell with a doctor. The doctor askedwhere he hurt and why he had fallen. Fr. Demosthenes responded, ‘I don’tremember.’ The doctor kicked him and responded, ‘This is our medicine forOld Calendarists who want to kill Communists.’

“Fr. Demosthenes spent the next seven years in concentration camps. Hisexperience could comprise a chapter of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. Theprisoners were starved, tortured, and denied any form of comfort. At onepoint Fr. Demosthenes was so exhausted that he could not even remember theLord’s Prayer. In 1959 the authorities promised all religious prisoners fromhis camp freedom if they signed a declaration of apostasy. Out of 2,000prisoners only 90 agreed to sign. In the prison camp in Salcia, Fr.Demosthenes saw prisoners being trampled by horses as he and othersworked on building canals and other projects in the freezing winter. Manyyears later, Fr. Demosthenes met one of the prison guards of Salcia, whoinformed him that it was indeed a miracle he had survived, for the guardshad orders that no one was to leave that camp alive.

“In 1964 Fr. Demosthenes was freed from prison. When his mother sawhim for the first time in seven years, she asked, ‘Why did they release you,did you compromise the faith?’ His mother was relieved to hear that her sonhad not betrayed the Church; this was her main concern. After three weeks hewas again under house arrest. Fr. Demosthenes fled to the forests and lived inhiding for five more years.”366

The years 1959-64 were years of persecution throughout Eastern Europe.Similarly appalling conditions prevailed in Bulgaria at this time. Many priestsand monks were held in the approximately 30 death camps, where prisonerswere brought up one by one to be slaughtered.367

Another Romanian Hierarchy

Although information is sketchy and hard to verify, it appears that therewas another Old Calendar hierarchy in Romania.368 Its origins go back to theimmediate post-war period. In 1948, at the request – more precisely, order - ofthe Soviets, the new calendarist Romanian Church was obliged to surrenderits parishes in the diaspora and let them come under the jurisdiction of theMoscow patriarchate. Worried by the danger this posed for their flock, severalbishops, foremost among them Grigorie Leu of Husi and Chesarie of Tomis,

366 Victor Boldewskul, "The Old Calendar Church of Romania", Orthodox Life, vol. 42, № 5,October-November, 1992, pp. 13-15. Bishop Demosthenes spent seven years in prion.367 Ivan Marchevsky, personal communication.368 Most of the following information comes from an English summary, by Fr. AnthimusBichar, of a book written by Corneliu Leu and entitled The Life and Sufferings of the First Bishopof the Exile: Victor Leu (Bucharest: Bishop Grigorie Leu Foundation (in Romanian)).

151

decided to send the priests Florian Galdau and Vasile Leu, the son of BishopGrigorie, to help the aged and sick Metropolitan Visarion Puiu. Since Fr.Vasile’s wife had died, he was tonsured in preparation for consecration to theepiscopate.

On August 21, 1948 the two priests left Romania, and after jumping fromthe train at Isanova railway station, entered Yugoslavia, where they werearrested and interrogated by Yugoslav security. They succeeded in escapingand reached Austria. There, after staying for a time in a camp, they were setfree by the Allied Forces and began to serve in a church in Salzburg.Eventually, after a meeting of Romanian exiles from all over the diaspora, theAutonomous Romanian Orthodox Archiepiscopate of Western Europe wasset up. Since Metropolitan Visarion was ill and paralysed in a sanatorium inSwitzerland, Fr. Vasile was sent to the Russian Church Abroad in Munich tobe consecrated to the episcopate.

ROCOR had already given some help to the Romanian Church. Thus in theearly 1930s ROCOR appealed to the Serbian Church on behalf of RussianOrthodox Christians persecuted in Romania. And Bishop Seraphim (Lyade) ofVienna was sent to Bessarabia to minister to Russian Old Calendarists andordain priests there. 369 And Metropolitan Seraphim now joined BishopStephen (Sevbo) of Vienna and Bishop Philip of Potsdam in consecrating Fr.Vasile in December, 1949, giving him the new name Vasile-Victor. Accordingto the Securitate accounts of his interrogation, Bishop Vasile-Victor admittedto the fact that the British agent Atkinson had paid the three bishops £1000each to consecrate him. However, the files of the German diocese of ROCORreveal no record of this consecration…370

The new bishop immediately set about founding Romanian Orthodoxparishes on the basis of a strong anti-communist position. He met KingMichael in Switzerland, gave the sacrament of confession to Queen Anna, andmet the old King Carol in Paris. He also broadcast in Romanian from the BBCin London and several radio stations in Austria, and was a regular contributorto Paris Radio. He issued thousands of certificates to Romanian refugees toenable them to obtain visas in western countries.

369 Andrew Psarev, “The Development of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’sAttitude Toward Other Local Orthodox Churches”,http://www.sobor2006.com/printerfriendly2.php?id=119_0_3_0, p. 2; .Kovalevsky,“Tragicheskaia smert’ mitr. Serafima (Lyade)” (The Tragic Death of Metropolitan Seraphim(Lyade), Russkaia Mysl’ (Russian Thought) , October 4, 1950; quoted by Archbishop Ambrose(von Sievers), “Bezobrazniki: K sobtytiam v RPZTs 1945-55gg.” (Hooligans: Towards Eventsin the ROCOR from 1945 to 1955), Russkoe Pravoslavie (Russian Orthodoxy), № 2 (16), 1999, p.17; Fr. Anthimus (Bichir), “Re: [True-Faith] New Romanian OC Synod?”, [email protected], February 3, 2002.370 According to Bishop Ambrose of Methone, when Fr. Glycerius approached MetropolitanSeraphim with regard to consecration in 1943, the metropolitan asked for money. So thisaspect of the story seems plausible. On the other hand, Bishop Philip of Potsdam hadrenounced his episcopate and monasticism by this time (personal communication).

152

In Romania, meanwhile, Bishop Victor-Vasile’s father, Bishop Grigorie,had suffered the abolition of his diocese of Husi, and on February 25, 1949was summoned to Bucharest for discussions. Being a strong anti-communistwho had warned about the transformation of the Romanian Church into a“Sovrom patriarchy”, he was not allowed to return a healthy man. Three dayslater he died, probably from poisoning.

On August 16, 1952 Bishop Victor-Vasile was arrested in Vienna, injectedwith some substance, and kidnapped. Three days later he woke up in a Sovietprison. He was transported to the Lubyanka in Moscow, where he wasinterrogated for seven months and charged with working for the English andAmerican secret services. Beria himself sometimes took part in theinterrogations.

Bishop Victor-Vasile refused to ask for a pardon, and also refused todelegate anyone to make such a request on his behalf. “I considercommunism to be the main enemy of the Christians,” he said, “and that iswhy this is the goal of my life.” At the Bucharest District Law Court onNovember 16, 1954 he declared: “I realize that you want to find out whether Icollaborated with the English information service. I said and I repeat that Ihaven’t spied for anybody. I am an enemy of this Romanian regime, whichhas turned the country into a kind of prison. I carried out this activity becausethe communist regime is a strait jacket for the soul and essence of theRomanian people. The only decision that would honour me and the law courtwould be my condemnation to death.”

On November 20, 1954 he was condemned to death for treason (resolution№ 2417). However, he was not executed, but passed through all the prisons of Romania. In 1964 he was released. His file in the security archives is 300 pageslong and reveals that he made no compromise with the authorities.

After his release, Bishop Victor-Vasile refused to join the Romanianpatriarchate, but instead set off for the monastery of the Old Calendarists atSlătioara in Moldavia, where he was accepted as a bishop at first. However,canonical differences with the other Old Calendarists forced him to return toBucharest. It appears that Bishop Victor-Vasile took a stricter attitude towardsthe Romanian new calendarists, rebaptising and remarrying them, and alsocould not recognize the validity of the consecration of Metropolitan Galaction,since it had been carried out in 1935, after the calendar change. On the otherhand, the Old Calendarists did not accept Victor-Vasile’s consecrationbecause he did not have ordination papers, and because ROCOR had norecords of his consecration.371

371 Kovalevsky, op. cit.; Bishop Ambrose of Methone, private communication, August 10/23,2005.

153

Bishop Victor-Vasile now set about ordaining priests and hierarchs on hisown. One of them was called Clement and another - Cassian. However, hisactivity was confined to his flat in Bucharest because the communists placedhim under virtual house arrest in order to restrict his contact with the faithful.That is why, when he died in 1978, he was taken to Cernica monastery andburied by the new calendarists there. Only a few laymen from his flock, andno priests, were present.

Showdown in San Francisco

In the early 1960s ROCOR Archbishop Tikhon of San Francisco fell ill, soArchbishop Anthony of Los Angeles was appointed to be temporaryadministrator of the diocese and in charge of the building of the newcathedral. He discovered a scandal involving the financing of the project, - itappears that more than $150,000 had been stolen, - and demanded that fundraisers should be held and that the money necessary to complete the buildingshould be secured and accounted for in a bank account before they proceededany further with the construction. A new parish council was elected, but thesupporters of the warden of the former council, who consisted of formerparishioners of Archbishop John (Maximovich) when he was ruling bishop ofShanghai, invited him to come to San Francisco and solve the problem.372

Archbishop John agreed, and received the blessing of the ROCOR Synod totransfer his see from Brussels to San Francisco.

Upon arriving, he took the side of his former Shanghai parishioners, andpermitted the founding of a Society of Laymen which, according to thesecretary of the Synod, Fr. George Grabbe, constituted an authority parallelto, and a rival to, the diocesan authority of the bishops. “VladykaMetropolitan wrote to Vladyka John, that he should not permit thisorganisation. He was silent and accepted from them the organisation of afestivity on his namesday. This society, headed by dark personalities, isintending to seize power over the whole of the Church Abroad throughVladyka John. After this society has developed in California somethingsimilar will follow in other countries, too, for these people have largeresources from somewhere or other. In complete secrecy, for example, theyhave bought Vladyka John a house, about which he has told nobodyanything, but it has become known from the newspaper… The editor ofRusskaia Zhizn’ (Russian Life) Delyanich, who is connected with the solidaristsand Shakhovskoy [the Metropolia Archbishop of San Francisco] has, with

372 Archbishop Tikhon had recovered from his illness by this time, but according toArchbishop Averky the ROCOR Synod “laid a ban on his return to the flock that loved himand was devoted to him… This is very dangerous precedent, which must be subjected tounreserved condemnation, so that it should not be repeated in the future” (Report on theAffair of the Church Disturbance in San Francisco, Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 9).

154

another woman, bought this house for $62,000 with a cash down-payment of$9000, and within a month transferred it into the name of Vladyka John.”373

In May, 1963 Vladyka John was summoned to a session of the Synod inwhich his supporters among the bishops did participate. The discussionswent on for four hours behind closed doors. Finally, it was decided by amajority of votes to remove him from San Francisco. When Vladyka returnedwith this news to San Francisco, there was massive unrest and a petition withmany signatures was sent to the Synod asking that their beloved archpastornot be removed. The opposing party also redoubled their efforts. In his reportto the Synod of July 23, Vladyka John wrote: “There was a danger of massivefights, I tried to hold people back as far as I could, my presence restrained thiszeal not according to reason, but to my profound sorrow everything that wasdone to establish peace in my flock in the course of four months wasdestroyed at one blow in one day.” (p. 3). Metropolitan Anastasy telephonedVladyka John and spoke with him for one hour, as a result of whichconversation the temporary administration of the diocese was given back toVladyka John for another six months. But passions did not cool. On July 9there was due to take place the re-election of the members of the parishcouncil and the warden, but the members of the parish council who wereagainst Vladyka were categorically against the elections, understanding thatVladyka John’s supporters were almost twice the number of their own. Theonly way of keeping their places was to sue Vladyka for financialmismanagement. The court ordered that the building of the cathedral bestopped until the end of the trial. The opponents of Vladyka John summonedhis enemies among the bishops to the trial: Archbishops Nicon (Rklitsky),Anthony (Sinkevich) of Los Angeles, Vitaly (Ustinov) of Canada andSeraphim (Ivanov) of Chicago. Also appearing for the opposition was thesecretary of the Synod, Fr. George Grabbe. In his report to the Synod VladykaJohn wrote: “At the first hearing there arrived the secretary of the Synod,Protopresbyter George, one of the most influential members of the clique. Hisconstant meetings with lawyers for the plaintiffs attracted attention tohimself… It is with pain that I have to see and observe the collapse of theChurch Abroad, which is beneficial only for her enemies. We, her hierarchs,cannot allow this, nor that one organized group should lord it over the rest ofthe episcopate and should by any means introduce that which it desires…”374

Archbishop John was acquitted of financial mismanagement, and onAugust 13, the Hierarchical Council of ROCOR decided to confirm him in thesee of San Francisco. In reply, on August 18, there was an “Extraordinarymeeting of the Initiative group of the opponents of Archbishop John”. At thismeeting a “Group standing for the purity of the Synod” declared that they

373 Letter of Fr. George to Archbishop Theodosius (Samoilovich) of Brazil, 12/25 June, 1963.See also the letter of Protoprebyter George Grabbe to Bishop Anthony of Melbourne, June7/20, 1963, in Tserkovnie Novosti (Church News), July, 2002, № 8 (109), pp. 7-8 ®.374 Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, pp. 11-12.

155

were not alone, that “the American Council of Churches [a mainly Protestantorganization] has already taken note of Archbishop John’s entourage, and haspromised support” (Novaia Zaria (New Dawn), № 8618, 20 August, 1963). Vladyka John was accused that “already for half a year he has beenconducting negotiations with the Greek and Serbian Churches… so as to joinone of them… and for this aim he is trying to take possession of the propertyof the Joy of All Who Sorrow cathedral… Vl. John has surrounded himself bypeople with a communist past.”

The bitterness caused by this affair lingered on, and in 1966 one ofArchbishop John’s supporters, Archbishop Averky of Syracuse andJordanville, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “A tendency has appeared amonga small group of bishops to create ‘its own party’ and strive for all power inthe Church. Scandals have begun among us which, alas, are leading ourChurch to destruction, all the while broadening and deepening their activityfrom that time until now.” 375 It is even reported that an ukaz banningArchbishop John from serving had been prepared at the time of his death in1966…376

Moreover, when Archbishop John came to be canonized in July, 1994,Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles objected. As he declared to the Sobor ofROCOR in 1993: “I am convinced that Vladyka John was not a saint. From apurely theological point of view, miracle-working is not a sign of sanctity.There is no doubt that Vladyka John worked miracles, I even experienced hiswonderworking on myself. But together with that, we have to remember thewords of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) at the consecration ofVladyka John: ‘God has given you many gifts, see that you do not becomeproud…’ In San-Francisco his fall took place, because Vladyka Johnsupported that group of people which did not deserve to be trusted…”377

375 Archbishop Averky, letter of September 14/27, 1966 ®. See also Sergius Nosov, "DrugaiaPravda" (Another Truth), Moskva (Moscow), February, 1993 ®. On April 21, 1967, Averkyagain wrote to the metropolitan: “I am inexpressibly sorry for you, Holy Vladyko, that youare being so skilfully and cunningly cajoled by dishonourable people who have clearly losttheir conscience, if they are able so disgustingly and horribly to slander others who see them andknow them and whom they for that reason fear. After all, besides a small bunch of personalfriends and relatives, who are also bound to each other by a commonality of interests of the samebase character, absolutely nobody supports them. The true Church people is not with them, for itsees and knows them thoroughly and does not believe them. By slandering others, they think they canin this way whitewash themselves… Everything would be peaceful, quiet and friendly with us inthe Church if it were not for the striving of this bunch to seize dictatorial power into theirown hands” (Personal Archive of Archbishop Averky; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 33).376 Hieromonk Gregory (Lourié), “Fabrika grez” (A Tissue of Dreams), 2003 ®. For an accountof the controversy, see Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim Rose: His Lifeand Works, Platina, Ca.: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, 2003, chapters 41 and 42.377 Protocols of the Hierarchical Council of ROCOR, 22 April / 5 May, 1993, p. 3; in vonSievers, “Proslavlen li u Boga Arkhiepiskop Ioann (Maksimovich)?” (Was Archbishop John(Maximovich) Glorified by God?), op. cit., p. 37. Archbishop Anthony confirmed this opinionof his to the present writer in November, 1994, saying that he thought Archbishop John hadbeen wrong in insisting on the innocence of those accused of financial corruption on the

156

Whatever the truth about this particular affair, - and there is much thatremains obscure about it, - there can be no doubt that Archbishop John is asaint, as is witnessed by his incorrupt relics and the extraordinary abundanceof miracles worked in answer to the prayers of believers around the world.His tomb, which is located in the crypt of the cathedral he was finally able tobuild, to the Mother of God “The Joy of All Who Sorrow”, in San Francisco,has become a major place of pilgrimage for Orthodox Christians of allnationalities. Archbishop John remains probably the best-known and mostuniversally loved personality in the whole history of the Russian ChurchAbroad.

But the quarrel in San Francisco was not the only controversial event in hiscareer. Another was his reception into his diocese in Western Europe ofgroups of converts keeping the new calendar, all of whom later left theChurch after his death. His career demonstrates that in the terrible chaos ofthe twentieth century even the greatest of men made serious mistakes – a factthat is illustrated also in the lives of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas, Patriarch Tikhon,Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina,Bishop Matthew of Bresthena and others. In this fact lies an important lessonfor all True Orthodox Christians: that while striving for correctness and purityin the faith, we have to take account of the extraordinarily difficult times welive in our judgements of our leaders…

grounds of a personal revelation. According to Elena Petrova, Archbishop Anthony said thatArchbishop John defended his opinion on the basis of a personal revelation from God, whichwas incorrect (personal communication, November, 1994).